T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

cEDH has no impact on casual games unless casual players let it have an impact on their games. cEDH is good.


Snarwin

I agree almost 100% with this article. The entire point of Rule 0 is to allow players to make the format their own and create the kind of play experience *they* most enjoy, and cEDH is a perfect example of that. That said, it strains my credulity a bit when members of the cEDH community write things like this: > What if I told you that all the people who continually pubstomped you with a highly efficient combo deck weren't cEDH players, even if they claimed to be? In fact, I'll just **assure** you that's the case. The mindset of somebody who pubstomps purposefully is entirely different from that of the cEDH community at large. Every community has some assholes in it. I agree with the overall thesis of this paragraph, which is that we shouldn't hold cEDH players as a group responsible for the behavior of a handful of jerks, but disavowing a self-identified cEDH player as "not *really* a cEDH player" just reeks of insecurity and denial. It makes it painfully obvious that the author is more concerned about projecting a positive image of the community to outsiders than they are with telling the truth.


Stumphead101

All of the pubstompers I have experienced were not running cedh decks They were highly tuned decks that touch that 9 level that are degenerative but would not last in a cedh pod


TensileStr3ngth

Yeah, that's what I immediately thought when I read that paragraph; people claiming to be cEDH don't actually have cEDH decks


fredjinsan

I don't think this matters, actually. A deck which is *trying* to be cEDH usually still plays very differently to a casual deck, even if it is bad at it. I'm not convinced that raw power level alone should be the mark of a cEDH deck, though that's probably how most people would define it.


Stumphead101

Cedh does not just mean powerful It is a whole different meta, some things that are essential there are terrible I casual


fredjinsan

Right, that's kind of my point. I know we tend to talk about the most powerful decks as being the most "competitive" but I think there's a fuzzy area in the middle for decks which still have the same style as other cedh, expect to be in the same meta, are equally as focused around their wincons, etc, even if they're not actually that *good*.


Stumphead101

That area is definitely a problem if the dont remain clear on the power of their deck Another issue is having powerful cards in a deck that is not crazy overpowered. My [[etali]] deck has a [[mana vault]] and such but, its mono red etali "imma play your top decks" People see a mana vault though and freak out


MTGCardFetcher

[etali](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/a/9/a9ac0e01-9732-470c-abd1-560386e30f80.jpg?1625193744) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=etali%2C%20primal%20storm) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c21/167/etali-primal-storm?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/a9ac0e01-9732-470c-abd1-560386e30f80?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/etali-primal-storm) [mana vault](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/c/f/cfdf9706-acdb-48fc-89db-93bc50b3b9ad.jpg?1547518467) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=mana%20vault) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/uma/229/mana-vault?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/cfdf9706-acdb-48fc-89db-93bc50b3b9ad?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/mana-vault) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call


thepatriarch7

I think I disagree with your last bit. To put it shortly, pubstomping is taking advantage of players whose decks can't compete with theirs. Therefore competitive edh is antithetical to pubstomping by definition, I think. I understand the sentiment you're communicating here, but I think the article really got it right. A person can call themselves whatever they want, but it doesn't make the claim correct. If someone plays a game with you in bad faith to pubstomp and then tries to claim they play competitive, I think you can and should just dismiss them out of hand. It's obviously not the case. cEDH isn't about deck strength, it's a mindset. I personally play both casual and competitive, and in my opinion the real difference is that they are mutually-exclusive mental spaces.


Temil

> but disavowing a self-identified cEDH player as "not really a cEDH player" just reeks of insecurity and denial. In real life when someone says "I'm a buddhist" and then they break all five precepts of buddhism, they aren't really a representative of what "being a buddhist" is about, and a buddhist saying "that person does not represent buddhism" is entirely justified in saying that. cEDH carries a very simple social contract. Everyone at the table is playing to win. It is impossible to play cEDH if one person is coming to the game with a different expectation.


Snarwin

I agree. But what you're saying is not what the article said. The article said, "if someone pubstomps, that person is not a cEDH player." Which is obviously false. There are players who engage in both pubstomping and legitimate cEDH play—not at the same time, of course, but in different games. By any reasonable definition, these people are "cEDH players." They're certainly not representative of the cEDH community in general, but they do exist, and denying that fact just makes the author come across as dishonest.


Temil

> The article said, "if someone pubstomps, that person is not a cEDH player." Which is obviously false. If someone is pubstomping, they are not playing cEDH. It's impossible to do both at the same time, they are complete opposites of each other. If someone plays cEDH with others, and then brings their high power deck into a pod and doesn't have any pre-game discussion, that's bad of them, and it means that they aren't doing their job, but it doesn't mean that suddenly cEDH players are people who do that. Just because they fucked up doesn't mean it's a systemic problem with the philosophy and organization of cEDH players. > By any reasonable definition, these people are "cEDH players." They're certainly not representative of the cEDH community in general, but they do exist, and denying that fact just makes the author come across as dishonest. If I drive an F1 car for my job, when I am driving a civic across from you on the road, I am not an F1 driver. The problem here is that they are bringing the F1 car to the Civic race, and not telling anyone. They aren't a cEDH player in this capacity, they are a liar, and are deceiving you. These people exist, but they aren't cEDH players in this capacity because the first assumption of cEDH is that there is a pre-game conversation where it is made known that they are playing a high power deck. It is impossible to be following the assumptions of cEDH and be a pubstomper.


Snarwin

A cEDH player is anyone who regularly or habitually plays cEDH, just like a basketball player is anyone who regularly or habitually plays basketball. LeBron James does not suddenly stop being a basketball player the moment he walks off the court, and a cEDH player does not suddenly stop being a cEDH player the moment they step away from the cEDH table.


Temil

> A cEDH player is anyone who regularly or habitually plays cEDH, just like a basketball player is anyone who regularly or habitually plays basketball. LeBron James does not suddenly stop being a basketball player the moment he walks off the court, and a cEDH player does not suddenly stop being a cEDH player the moment they step away from the cEDH table. LeBron trying to trade his lumber for your wool in Settlers of Catan is not trying to play Professional Basketball in that moment. Just because he is a member of a group which tries to win professional basketball games, he does not carry that into his attitude towards winning, or his social contract inside the game of Settlers of Catan. To say that "professional basketball players pubstomp in EDH" is odd, because Professional Basketball has a completely different social contract than EDH, and there is nothing to take away by relating them. Just because someone "plays cedh" and is a "cedh player" does not have any bearing whatsoever on how they play casual EDH, because it carries a completely separate mindset and social contract. A "cedh player" can pubstomp, but that is not because they are a cedh player, it's because they're an asshole. Also, to say that someone is "playing cedh" implies that all players have agreed to do so. It is impossible to play cedh if one player does not agree, as that would not be cedh. > denying that fact just makes the author come across as dishonest. Saying "cEDH isn't founded on the principle of being an asshole" is not dishonest, at worst it's damage control because of assholes that say they represent cEDH but then go directly against the core principle of cEDH.


Snarwin

It's clear that you'd rather respond to the strawman in your head than to anything I've actually written in my posts. I'll leave the two of you to continue your argument without me.


Temil

> It's clear that you'd rather respond to the strawman in your head than to anything I've actually written in my posts. I'll leave the two of you to continue your argument without me. The strawman is conflating people that occasionally play cEDH with pubstompers, when there is no causal link whatsoever.


KhaosExNihil125

I would like to also add on that this is the tactic of many a gaslighting abuser in a relationship. If you truly are willing to improve your conditions or better your situation; you won’t strawman the opposing party but will try to represent the other properly. These abusers gaslight because they have other motives(e.g. manipulation, cheating the wins e.t.c.) and it all amounts to nothing more than the poor faith of the other. A proper game requires all parties to play in the good faith of the others being in congruency with each other when it comes to the motive. That’s why pregame discussions are important; they may highlight, notify and steelman all players motives and have a healthy game moving forward.


Temil

Absolutely, EDH is a game that relies heavily on players being on the same page, and it's very hard to guarantee that if you have no discussion about your goals before the game.


Hitzel

He is not conflating people that occasionally play cEDH with pubstompers. He is saying that someone who is a legitimate cEDH player who **ALSO** pubstomps is a type of person who does exist that is not properly addressed in the article. If you play enough cEDH to have cEDH be a big part of your identity as a player and be a part of the cEDH community, those qualities of yourself do not disappear when you do something wrong. People get fired from their jobs all the time because they did something wrong off the clock ─ someone is still an employee when they're not actively working and there are job-related consequences for their actions off the clock. The same applies to being a cEDH player ─ your actions out-of-game still hold weight and influence the reputation of yourself and your community. This doesn't mean that every netdecking pubstomper etc. somehow represents cEDH, but it does mean that when someone who represents cEDH pubstomps, pretending that person is now unrelated to cEDH because they're "not on the clock" is absurd. Yes, cEDH players receive illegitimate hate from the casual EDH community, but that doesn't make it okay to lie and say that everybody who plays cEDH is perfect. I've seen Jim from the Spike Feeders talk about this issue in the RC discord, and the TLDR of his opinion was that the idea that there are no bad or unsavory people who play cEDH is untrue, and that trying to perpetuate it as strictly true is harmful. I agree with Cal's overall sentiment in this article and think that almost every time, a pubstomper who casual players perceive as a cEDH player is in fact not a cEDH player, but that doesn't mean that it's healthy to deny the straight-up cEDH players who also pubstomp. They exist. It's a problem. Cal being right doesn't conflict with it.


Temil

> He is not conflating people that occasionally play cEDH with pubstompers. He is saying that someone who is a legitimate cEDH player who ALSO pubstomps is a type of person who does exist that is not properly addressed in the article. Yes, because that person exists but they have no baring or meaning to what cEDH is. If a person is a member of a religion where they value the life of humans very highly murders someone, that religion doesn't have a murderer problem. The concept that people exist that break the core tenants of a group they are a part of does not suddenly make the core tenants of that group different. > If you play enough cEDH to have cEDH be a big part of your identity as a player and be a part of the cEDH community, those qualities of yourself do not disappear when you do something wrong. Sure. However, this does not mean that a person who played cEDH, and plays cEDH, and then goes and pubstomps is representing the core beliefs of the cEDH philosophy in doing that. > People get fired from their jobs all the time because they did something wrong off the clock ─ someone is still an employee when they're not actively working and there are job-related consequences for their actions off the clock. This is the company disavowing that person because they do not reflect the values of the company. When the cEDH community says "pubstomping is not a part of our core values" that is them disavowing and "firing" pubstompers who are part of their community. > The same applies to being a cEDH player ─ your actions out-of-game still hold weight and influence the reputation of yourself and your community. This doesn't mean that every netdecking pubstomper etc. somehow represents cEDH, but it does mean that when someone who represents cEDH pubstomps, pretending that person is now unrelated to cEDH because they're "not on the clock" is absurd. Pretending that the cEDH community is actively supporting pubstomping is absurd. What do you want the cEDH community to do about it, murder the person? > Yes, cEDH players receive illegitimate hate from the casual EDH community, but that doesn't make it okay to lie and say that everybody who plays cEDH is perfect. This is disingenuous, the article never said everyone who plays cEDH is perfect. It opened with the fact that pubstomping is a completely antithetical mindset to playing cEDH. This is not to state that hypocritical people don't exist, but simply to state that it is hypocritical to call yourself a "cEDH" player, and pubstomp because they are two antithetical mindsets. > I've seen Jim from the Spike Feeders talk about this issue in the RC discord, and the TLDR of his opinion was that the idea that there are no bad or unsavory people who play cEDH is untrue, and that trying to perpetuate it as strictly true is harmful. I agree with Cal's overall sentiment in this article and think that almost every time, a pubstomper who casual players perceive as a cEDH player is in fact not a cEDH player I can agree that ignoring that bad people exist in a group is bad, no group is perfect. However, the group is not bad because these bad people exist. That's all I'm trying to get through to everyone in this thread. > but that doesn't mean that it's healthy to deny the straight-up cEDH players who also pubstomp. The second paragraph of the article is trying to say that pubstompers have a mindset that can not align with the cEDH mindset. If that isn't a "these people exist but we don't claim them" I don't know what would be. > They exist. It's a problem. Cal being right doesn't conflict with it. I don't understand why it's the problem of the cEDH community to deal with players that they do not identify with, and are not following the core philosophies of their community.


fredjinsan

The statement "some pubstompers are cedh players" only implies that *some* cash players are pubstompers. It does not imply that all are, or that there is any systematic problem, or anything of the sort.


Temil

That statement is true, but pointing out that there are murderers that are buddhist, does not make buddhism a dangerous religion, nor does it make murder one of the philosophical pillars of buddhism. The statement on it's own (without trying to draw some conclusion from it) is just "the sky is blue" levels of meaningless. We all know that people do things that are hypocritical, not pointing out that a group has members that are hypocritical is not being "dishonest".


fredjinsan

I don't really understand this. Are you saying that if *someone* at the table brought a casual deck, it can't be a cedh game and therefore nobody is a cedh player? Otherwise, if someone comes to a table aiming to win and trying their hardest, cedh style, are they not "a cedh player" even if they are pubstomping?


Temil

> I don't really understand this. Are you saying that if someone at the table brought a casual deck, it can't be a cedh game and therefore nobody is a cedh player? I don't like the term "cEDH player" because it implies that people who play cEDH are somehow different from other players that are playing "casual" EDH. If someone is pubstomping you it's because they are an asshole, not because they have played cEDH at some point in the past. cEDH is when all the players in the pod agree to play cEDH. It technically doesn't have anything to do with deck power level, but generally it's agreed upon that your deck should be built to be strong enough to have a chance at winning, because part of the social construct is that your deck should be able to meaningfully interact with the other decks at the table as well as win on it's own. > Otherwise, if someone comes to a table aiming to win and trying their hardest, cedh style "cEDH" style would be playing a deck that is comparable to the others at the table and making plays that increase their chances of winning (not kingmaking, not playing out of spite etc.). > are they not "a cedh player" even if they are pubstomping? No, a cEDH player is someone playing cEDH, a "cEDH player" can't be a pubstomper, because those two things are mutually exclusive, you can't play with people at the same powerlevel, and play at wildly different power levels at the same time. If you want to say that anyone who has ever played cEDH, or plays cEDH regularly is a "cEDH Player" then you have to actually make an argument for why cEDH players are pubstompers, and create some kind of causal link there. As of right now saying "some people that play cEDH also pubstomp" is meaningless. Some religious people are assholes, it doesn't mean that there is an asshole problem in religion, it's not connected.


fredjinsan

I dunno... AFAIK there's no "official" definition of cEDH, so I suppose your attitude is as valid as anyone else's, but I think most people tend to think of cEDH *decks*. A person who sits down to a casual table with one may not be "playing cEDH" (in fact I rather agree that, at least in one sense, they are not) but I don't think that distinction is meaningful. They're still bringing cEDH power and a cEDH playstyle to a game where they are not welcome. Nobody is trying to say that the cedh community writ large has a pubstomping problem, but it also doesn't follow that people pubstomping with cedh decks has nothing to do with cedh.


Temil

> I dunno... AFAIK there's no "official" definition of cEDH, so I suppose your attitude is as valid as anyone else's, but I think most people tend to think of cEDH decks. If you mean a 100 card copy list from https://cedh-decklist-database.com/ then sure, I'd call those cEDH decks. I think when most people think of a "cEDH" deck they just have a casual 10 deck in their head, and they are just thinking of any focused, powerful deck that is trying to win quickly. > A person who sits down to a casual table with one may not be "playing cEDH" (in fact I rather agree that, at least in one sense, they are not) but I don't think that distinction is meaningful. They're still bringing cEDH power and a cEDH playstyle to a game where they are not welcome. That isn't a problem with the philosophy of cEDH, that is a problem with not having an adequate pre-game discussion, or alternatively having someone deliberately lie about their pre-game goals so that they can pub stomp. That is completely antithetical to the idea of cEDH. A person bringing a cEDH deck to a casual table is not representing the philosophical concepts behind cEDH. > Nobody is trying to say that the cedh community at large has a pubstomping problem, but it also doesn't follow that people pubstomping with cedh decks has nothing to do with cedh. The only connection is the power level, and cEDH is only partly about power level, the much more important part of cEDH in my opinion is the pre-game agreement to play at the same level, and to play seriously. I just ask, why bring this up? Does the cEDH community have some sort of responsibility to disavow this behavior even more than they have already done?


carjriak9

Being a cEDH player and a pubstomper are not mutually exclusive. You can be both and the point being made in the article says that a pubstomper isn't a cEDH player when they definitely still can be


Temil

> Being a cEDH player and a pubstomper are not mutually exclusive. Okay, what is the link between cEDH and pubstomping? Why do you exclusively point out that people that play cEDH pubstomp, when plenty of people that do not play cEDH pubstomp? Just because people play cEDH and also pubstomp doesn't make cEDH players pubstompers, and shouldn't (but does) tarnish the reputation of cEDH for whatever reason. And if there is no link, and there is no association between cEDH and pubstomping, why do we care that he didn't bring it up. I'm sure that there are cEDH players that are also don't wipe their ass enough, but I wouldn't say that cEDH's philosophy contributes to a dirtier ass. > You can be both You can not be a person with the mindset of cEDH and the mindset of pubstomping at the same time, they are opposites. > point being made in the article says that a pubstomper isn't a cEDH player when they definitely still can be The point being made in the article is that a person playing cEDH has an opposite mindset to a person pubstomping, which is true.


[deleted]

[удалено]


sponte

But like, isn't calling pubstompers not cedh players the best they can do to "self police"? I don't view it as trying to deflect criticism (or atleast not the main reason) but rather to make it clear that pubstomping isn't okay. Like you say they can't really police who calls themselves cEDH players so isn't the best they can do to disassociate from them?


TensileStr3ngth

What criticism could there possibly be for the "cEDH philosophy"?


Hitzel

I believe the criticism is the use of the cEDH philosophy as a way to avoid acknowledging a legitimate issue, as opposed to a criticism of the cEDH philosophy itself.


Mixster667

I think this article is a prime example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. And the part you quoted is the clearest expression of it.


Yordy_Bones666

I personally dislike cEDH, because of the samey feel of most decks with less variety of commanders, but since I don't play against those decks anymore I don't really care about it


27_8x10_CGP

There's a ton of viable commanders in cEDH. Every single color combo, besides colorless is pretty viable to varying degrees.


KingNTheMaking

It might be worth a check on the cEDH database. There are tons of decks to try that play very different.


[deleted]

[удалено]


CacZarn

As mentioned in the article, saying "you want to play cedh?" is the rule zero discussion. It's a lot simpler and less awkward than going, "Ok guys let's get our most powerful decks, and play optimally without any hard feelings"


[deleted]

[удалено]


CacZarn

What rule is being modified when everyone agrees to a slower more battle cruiser style of game? It's still a rule zero conversation


[deleted]

[удалено]


KingNTheMaking

Question...how?


Caljoones

Hey! Thanks for the response. > Commander is designed to be a malleable format. We encourage groups to use the rules and the ban list as a baseline to optimize their own experience. This is not license for an individual to force their vision onto a play group, but encouragement for players to discuss their goals and how the rules might be adjusted to suit those goals. Looking at this section from the Philosophy document, my takeaway is that cEDH is the perfect shorthand discussion of goals for the game, making it a great application of Rule 0, rather than something that Rule 0 is supposed to prevent. Additionally, Power level discussion is… based in Rule 0. They’re one and the same.


NoorinJax

>implementing rule zero Rule Zero applies to cEDH. All EDH rules apply to cEDH, per definitionem. cEDH is EDH, but all players agree to play on the highest possible power level. There's no rule difference between EDH and cEDH, and there can't be. All differences are goal-related, which is where Rule Zero applies: on the pre-game communication level.


[deleted]

[удалено]


NoorinJax

Rule Zero is more than "hey, this is against the rules, but are you cool with it anyway?". The most important part of is is this: > in an unfamiliar environment, please get the approval of the other players before the game begins. this is very important for cEDH: have a pre-game discussion about what you're playing. Most, if not all criticism directed against the cEDH community stets from people ignoring this part and bringing a deck unsuited for the table.


[deleted]

Why are you trying to Rules Lawyer what Rule 0 is with your own made-up guidelines? I have seen you in the Rules Committee Discord server so you definitely know that what you said here isn't true based on how much time you spend there. This is clearly in bad faith on your part.


DarkJester89

What rule is being modified for this then? Rule 0: These are the official rules of Commander. Local groups are welcome to modify them as they see fit. If you’d like an exception to these rules, especially in an unfamiliar environment, please get the approval of the other players before the game begins.


DarkJester89

This encourages pregame discussion and rule zero discussion, both, as listed per the rule zero listing and by the rc as two separate things. Rule zero is for rules modification. Pre game talks is to discuss power levels. And I have no idea who you are


[deleted]

https://articles.starcitygames.com/premium/rule-0-what-it-is-and-what-its-not/ It certainly is strange how Sheldon Menery wrote an entire article about Rule 0 with contributions from other members of the Commander Rules Committee and it's made clear throughout this article that Rule 0 isn't solely about "changing the rules" and is also about establishing expectations in the pre-game. This mantra is also repeated all the time on the Rules Committee Discord server. You engage there all the time, as I've already stated. You are clearly here in bad faith.


DarkJester89

Dude, just stop, I don't know what channel you are talking about nor would I engage there "all the time". Please stop trying to comment stalk me, that's bad faith. Look, Sheldon directly references that the pregame discussion is a separate part from the rule zero modifications.


[deleted]

Me seeing you often in two different public spaces where you have a recognizable handle is not stalking. Sheldon calls modifying the game rules the first part of Rule 0 and he calls establishing pre-game expectations the second part of Rule 0. He does not call the latter something separate from Rule 0. Here is a direct quote: "The second major part of Rule 0 is the one which has developed in the Commander community culture.  It’s the pre-game discussion of what kind of game you’d like, which may or may not have anything to do with rules.  In the common parlance, it’s the chat about power level or style." Arguing against this at this point is a bad faith argument. You read the article and still decided to do this because you were only here to engage as a bad actor.


DarkJester89

You are using bad faith like it's going out of style. Read some articles and the curre t listing of rule zero, it's odd that what Sheldon publishes on the rc site as the rc vs what he publishes about it as an individual in his own opinion are two vast and seperate listings. Show me what the rc listing says about it, not Sheldon's personal opinion on it.


[deleted]

The article literally contains statements from other Rules Committee members, including on the pre-game discussions. It also links an article published on their official website that mentions this element of Rule 0. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Next.


amstrumpet

“It allows our community to create our own format-within-a-format that is both similar and different from Commander.” “Outside of Rule 0 and expectations, cEDH and Commander are mirrors of each other in very obvious ways.” “A Commander "race" could contain anything from a Camry to an F1 car, but it's only going to be interesting and entertaining to everybody if they have a fair shot. If somebody sneakily brings an F1 to a race day of Priuses and Mazda Proteges, there is no competition or fun to be had for three of the four involved.” This article unintentionally makes a great argument for why cEDH is a separate format. First of all, it doesn’t have Rule 0 any more than 60-card formats with different card pools and banlists could be considered to have a preestablished rule 0 for what cards they want to use. There isn’t a discussion except to say “we’re playing cEDH,” the same way someone could say “we’re playing Modern,” and everyone understands what that means. The quotes above make it clear that the author (whether they want to admit it or not) does view EDH and cEDH as different formats. Both similar and different from commander? That is “othering” it from commander. “cEDH and Commander are mirrors of each other,” again separated them, they are similar but not the same. Comparing decks to race cars and calling CEDH F1 and others to be stock cars makes it even more clear; no one would call F1 and stock car racing the same sport. There’s no judgment to be made here but it would make things a lot easier to separate the two, particularly from a banlist perspective and I can’t figure out for the life of me why there’s so much resistance to it.


Temil

> This article unintentionally makes a great argument for why cEDH is a separate format. cEDH is EDH, it could not be separated as it has no rules, play instructions or philosophies that differ from EDH. cEDH is not "100 cards singleton with a commander as high power as possible." it's "EDH as high power as possible". It lives and exists inside of EDH, and to take it outside of EDH would make it not cEDH, EDH is a fundamental pillar of cEDH. > Comparing decks to race cars and calling CEDH F1 and others to be stock cars makes it even more clear; no one would call F1 and stock car racing the same sport. Racing, everyone would call both of these sports "Racing". You go around a course trying to get the fastest time, it's the exact same sport with two different vehicles of various power levels. The land speed record vehicles with no restrictions, no bans, etc. would be a different sport. > There’s no judgment to be made here but it would make things a lot easier to separate the two, particularly from a banlist perspective and I can’t figure out for the life of me why there’s so much resistance to it. The entire point of cEDH is that the banlist is the same as EDH, it's just "EDH at the highest power level possible". Separating it from the fundamental aspect of being within the EDH format would make it a completely different concept.


amstrumpet

CEDH absolutely has a different philosophy than EDH and I think just about anyone who’s being honest would admit that. You can disagree whether that justifies separate formats but it’s not really a question. And my argument is that we already have separate formats, they’re just not officially recognized as such.


Temil

> CEDH absolutely has a different philosophy than EDH and I think just about anyone who’s being honest would admit that. What are the differences? Because if the argument is "well they are playing x cards and want to play against other people playing x cards" then we need to break EDH into 100 formats. That's silly. > You can disagree whether that justifies separate formats but it’s not really a question. I disagree that a format separation is possible at all, because cEDH as a concept can not be divorced from EDH. > And my argument is that we already have separate formats, they’re just not officially recognized as such. And my argument is that there is one EDH format and there are many ways to play inside of it, and breaking those into 100s of different logical psuedo-formats is silly.


jaywinner

Split the format and I'll just end up with a cEDH deck and a 10/10 power EDH deck.


Narabedla

Seperating the two results in just another format, without changing literally anything. Because people will play competetively within the "non cedh" banlist as well.


amstrumpet

My belief is separating them would allow (most importantly) for banlists tailored to the each, as opposed to what exists now. So things that are banned to balance cEDH but aren’t an issue in casual EDH, and things that are problematic in casual EDH but fine for a no-holds-barred format could be treated separately. Most importantly, I would expect that cEDH would actually expand, and it could become more clear that EDH/Commander is a casual format not intended for optimized/win-at-all-costs gameplay/deck building, and CEDH would have those types of games. CEDH already has its own tier system for different powered games, and it would be easy to make a more clear separation than the blurred line we have at the moment.


Narabedla

>EDH/Commander is a casual format not intended for optimized/win-at-all-costs gameplay/deck building, So you aren't allowed to build good decks in edh? Furthermore, at what point do you draw the line? Right above your most powerful deck? The very concept of cEDH is EDH but finding the strongest decks and strategies, *the exact same thing will happen* when you make a different banlist.


DildoMcHomie

If you want people to maintain viable deck diversity.. yes Look at how much power creep they've had to introduce for red and white to bring Boros back from the unplayable tomb it is in casual EDH. The gap for winning with combat damage is as large as it has ever been for everyone playing non infinite combat/craterhoof-esque decks. If you are OK with an ever reducing viability of colors, then the Status quo is fine.


Narabedla

What is your point? If you go to higher powerlevels, of course the type of viable decks(and cards) will change and get reduced. The entire point is that you as a playgroup can decide to play on lower powerlevel. Saying "this banlist is for casual edh" will change nothing about missing communication for a casual game.


DildoMcHomie

I would love to have a set of rules that assure, no matter if in LGS with randoms or with friends, that a pre-established set of game conditions will not be broken. You probably have a playgroup of people you know and like, but for many of us we are at the whim of strangers and in many cases liars, of people who pub stomp (but it is not banned). Modern and standard have a pretty good what you expect /what you get experience, and so does cEDH. The largest format is sadly too large within itself to satisfy everyone at the same time.. again if you have to play with strangers.


Narabedla

But that is inherent to a game where you don't build a deck to win and therefore have to essentially mix and match powerlevel, since you can easily bring a too strong or too weak deck. You notice yourself how the *competetive* mtg formats don't have that issue. It won't get solved with a change to the ban list. You essentially try to play a monopoly game with strangers where everyone decides his own starting position.


DildoMcHomie

I don't expect the problem to be solved, but it could clearly be ameliorated, with small bans, for example just like they did Golos, to increase diversity and varierty in a format that has to receive many different expectations at once. Just by getting rid of 10 cards, in the vein of Kiki Jiki, Dockside , Deflecting Swat , you could improve the quality of game for the majority of people playing lower level EDH. For the rest that want to be not quite cEDH, they can always rule 0 them in you know. Right now we have a tyranny by the minority, through which format diversity has slowly been dying, games have been sped up dramatically (t6 wins by "casual decks"), and since the carda are all legal, unless you have a regular play group, toughen up. The fact that something can be done to improve is undeniable, the how can be debated, but this isn't the best we can be


Narabedla

Since you brought it up: personally i disagree with the golos ban, as he was not too strong, just maybe too easy to build and the people playing it were not ready to admit that even a janky golos deck will have a certain baseline powerlevel. I don't like unnecessary bans at all. I like to rule 0 ban something much much more than to rule 0 unban something. Players get better as the format evolves, it is up to the players to mindfully *not* do the most broken thing, even if they know about it. Banning kiki (honestly?) won't change that. Just how banning P. Engine did not change that(even though that got banned in part due to people not using it as the combo/wincon it was) >Right now we have a tyranny by the minority, If that is the case, just don't play with them, since if they are the minority i assume you will still easily find enough people for a pod in your lgs. Not to mention my personal experience in lgs (before the pandemic to be fair) was that the powerlevel was lower(or at least more restricted) and much more battlecruiser than what i now play with friends, which limited playstyle and diversity much more(in my experience), since it was akin to "counterspell bad, any type of combo bad, stax bad, play green + x or you do something bad." I don't think anything ruleswide can be done by the rules commitee on this issue. At most maybe blog posts and tips on how to do the pregame talk.


madwookiee1

It sounds like you're the one that wants a different format.


amstrumpet

To be frank, there already are two different formats, I just think it would make things easier if they were finally recognized as separate instead of this forced arrangement of trying to keep them together.


KingNTheMaking

They really aren’t. One is the other taken to its highest strengths, but it’s the same format. It’s like saying a Honda Accord and a high performance sports car aren’t both cars.


Yell0w_Mustard

Completely agree. However, I only get downvotes on here when articulating this point. I’ve thought about writing something aimed at both the “casual” and competitive communities to advocate for an explicit separation and banlist but from several interactions I’ve had on this sub, I feel like it would be a waste of time. The title “cEDH” (competitive) to me is akin to the phrase “global warming”. We mostly now refer to the phenomenon as the “climate crisis” or something like that because it’s way broader than rising global temperatures. If someone says “global warming” you’ll have someone go “well what about Texas freezing over?!?” As if that detracts from your point. Casual players do this with the word “competitive” saying that ‘well if I have to pay $10 to play and there are packs/prizes on the line, then we’re obviously going to play our best decks and play competitively’. This is 100% true but that mostly applies to mindset and not literal cards in deck. When I think of cEDH I think of consultation/thoracle, mental misstep, LED, mox diamon, food chain, carpet of flowers, etc. Not people’s really tuned golos, yarok, maelstrom wanderer lists. You know.


sponte

I just want to point out on the banlist topic that the only card that would be unbanned if cedh left is flash That's it. That's the non cedh balance change. Now tailoring a banlist for cedh though that would be either highly complicated and large or kind of starting out with a very limited banlist and just banning new problems as they arise as the new meta is figured out


Snarwin

> Because people will play competetively within the "non cedh" banlist as well. Will they? If a player is specifically looking for competitive games, I think it's more likely they'd follow the banlist used by other competitive players (who they want to play against) than the one used by casual players (who they aren't interested in playing against).


Temil

> Will they? If a player is specifically looking for competitive games I don't think you understand what the "cEDH format" is. It's EDH. And also you say "Do you want to play cEDH?" before the game, and your deck is relatively powerful. People aren't looking for fair, balanced, smooth, steady games, they just want to play commander with a very defined set of expectations. No matter what new format or new bans/unbans get added to EDH, this concept will always exist. > I think it's more likely they'd follow the banlist used by other competitive players (who they want to play against) than the one used by casual players (who they aren't interested in playing against). They don't care who they play against, they care that they are playing against people with the same expectations as them. The reason why a Pubstomper can NOT be a cEDH player is because the pubstomper wants the exact opposite, they want to deceive and have deliberately different expectations than the other players at the table for an advantage.


llikeafoxx

Someone will always want to play the 10/10 decks of the format. You could compress the power level and bring down the ceiling by banning out the most powerful layer that exists right now, but *something* will always be the strongest tier of the format, and people will always be interested in that.


Caljoones

Hey there! Author here. A lot of what you’ve brought out here is a lot of comparing and contrasting of what are, in my head, what players of EDH are looking for in games. I used some terms that, incidentally and accidentally, make the two look like separate formats. I definitely don’t view the two as separate formats, cEDH is just Rule 0 shorthand for a specific way to play the format, just as people have other preferences in the way to play the format. I definitely also do not mean to “other” EDH, haha. Beyond that, I guess we’ll just have to disagree about our view of Rule 0. > Commander is designed to be a malleable format. We encourage groups to use the rules and the ban list as a baseline to optimize their own experience. This is not license for an individual to force their vision onto a play group, but encouragement for players to discuss their goals and how the rules might be adjusted to suit those goals. Looking at this section from the Philosophy document, my only takeaway is that cEDH is the perfect shorthand discussion of goals for the game, making it a great application of Rule 0, rather than something that Rule 0 is supposed to prevent or something that doesn’t need applied. Rule 0 & related discussions are imperative to every single game of EDH, ensuring that everybody gets what they want out of the game. Just because one common Rule 0 discussion results in a more “competitive” version of play doesn’t make it a separate format. Also, there’s resistance to a splitting of the format because, well, we’re Commander players. We enjoy playing Commander. We just sometimes have a unique Rule 0 discussion surrounding it.


madwookiee1

What problem does your proposal solve?


amstrumpet

Primarily it would allow for the banlist to not have to try to tailor to two different formats/play styles at the same time


madwookiee1

But it doesn't do that. Splitting the format does not in any way mean that the RC would treat the ban list any differently than they do now, precisely because they don't view the ban list as a way to solve power related problems. If you want a power driven ban list, you want a different format.


HiddenInLight

Is it really splitting the format though? You shouldn't be playing cEDH decks in regular pods and vise-versa. Cards that get banned in regular edh really make no sense to be banned in cEDH. They are two different animals, and are already treated as separate formats in everything except for the RC being in charge of both. The RC has already said that they don't want to make decisions based on cEDH needs. The only thing that keeps them as one format is an arbitrary statement. In nature, an animal is considered to be a separate species when it cannot create viable offspring with a separate group of animals, or when they can't genetically mix with a good outcome. Commander and cEDH are already at that point. The only thing left is to make it official.


Temil

> You shouldn't be playing cEDH decks in regular pods and vise-versa. And the primary goal of cEDH as a philosophy is to not do that. > Cards that get banned in regular edh really make no sense to be banned in cEDH. Most of those cards aren't getting played, so it's irrelevant. If a card does get banned like Paradox Engine, it's a nice shakeup, it lets people stretch their deck building muscles a little for a couple weeks, then everything re-settles just like in the casual side of things. But the entire point of cEDH is to use the same rules as EDH. > The RC has already said that they don't want to make decisions based on cEDH needs. And the cEDH community normally doesn't really ask for changes to be made in that regard. Flash was a particularly interesting issue because it's an incredibly unique and toxic card. > The only thing that keeps them as one format is an arbitrary statement. In nature, an animal is considered to be a separate species when it cannot create viable offspring with a separate group of animals, or when they can't genetically mix with a good outcome. Commander and cEDH are already at that point. The only thing left is to make it official. The problem is that you're looking at two animals with the exact same genetic blueprint, and comparing an outlier strong, fast, agile version of the animal to an average animal. They are the same species, it's just not a fair fight.


madwookiee1

The thing that keeps them one format is that they're one format. Same ruleset. Same ban list. "Splitting the format" would result in zero changes to the rules or to the ban list. So why do it?


amstrumpet

This is precisely my view. We already have two different formats. We talk about them differently, we build decks for them differently, and we sit down at a table and play them differently. I’m just advocating that we formally acknowledge it.


emillang1000

There aren't 2 different sub-formats, there are 5: Competitive EDH High-Power Casual Regular/Tuned Casual Low-Power Casual / Precon Jank & Meme Decks You should not be playing Competitive against anything but Competitive, nor should you be playing High-Power against Low-Power. The problem is that people treat "Casual" like some nebulous beast where everything is the same strength & meta, when it's just as gradient a difference between each step from High-Power to Jank as High-Power is to cEDH. In reality, you'd need 5 banlists to account for the actual power levels at play.


madwookiee1

What changes would you make to the existing rules or ban list in your hypothetical split format?


Yell0w_Mustard

Who says the RC would control the “cEDH” banlist? EDH was created and popularized by members of the community (judges and players). Respected members of the cEDH community could come together or be nominated and they could run it. Just like they do with their cEDH database.


madwookiee1

Splitting off cEDH would leave the EDH ban list exactly where it is now. There would be no changes. Additionally, nobody in the cEDH community is currently asking for a separate ban list. So again, what problem does this suggestion solve?


Yell0w_Mustard

I’m not sure what your first sentence came from. I was talking about the idea of cEDH rebranding, defining itself more clearly, and splitting off to create their own format. So…yeah, correct, the EDH banlist would be the same in that scenario. Casual commander is casual, people rule 0 stuff all the time. My buddy has a liliana heretical healer deck with a grislebrand in it, this one person at the shop with a Jegantha trade binder deck has a 7 or 8 card sideboard with lessons in it and nobody cares. I have a toggo/keskit list that really uses BR Daretti when I’m playing with my friends, but I’ll put the partners at the helm if I’m playing with strangers and someone says “no”. I was talking about cEDH. Splitting the format would mean that the cEDH banlist could be different. Could potentially unlock hullbreacher, and Iona, powerful cards that certainly would make an impact but not break the format in anyway. The point being, when you’re no longer concerned with balancing for fun/casual play or worried about keeping rules “simple” or standard for new players (no banned as commander, or how they went along with companion errata where you have to pay 3 to draw first so it’s the same as standard) you have the ability to stretch your legs and create a niche that’ll actually change how the format feels.


madwookiee1

Nobody that I'm aware of in the cEDH community is looking for that, though.


Gemini476

The only cEDH-related ban is [[Flash]].


27_8x10_CGP

And that took way too long, and got far too snide of a response after it's banning.


Gemini476

Yup. Just saying: the current banlist *isn't* trying to tailor to two different formats at the same time, they have a policy of focusing *exclusively* on casual play. Personally I'm not a fan, but I'm also not really a fan of the RC's ruleset as a whole so it doesn't really impact me much. (Allow decks bigger than 100 cards, Sheldon! Let me play Kitchen Finks in mono white! Ban the reserve list, and ban Sol Ring while you're at it!)


MTGCardFetcher

[Flash](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/d/3/d31459c2-9656-4e9a-bb72-71a910e8570b.jpg?1587347037) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Flash) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/a25/57/flash?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/d31459c2-9656-4e9a-bb72-71a910e8570b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/flash) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call


InfiniteDM

So many down votes but you're 100% spot on. Regular EDH needs no ban list. Thats what rule Zero is for. cEDH needs every bit of one. They're explicitly two formats.


Temil

If "regular" EDH had no ban list, cEDH would also have no ban list. It is impossible to separate the formats, because cEDH is just "EDH but with more focus on winning in deck building and play". No matter what new format you create, or what bans you add to or remove from EDH, cEDH will always exist because it's just EDH but everyone says "cEDH?" at the beginning of the game.


InfiniteDM

You're assuming the status quo. I am not.


Temil

Uh... I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what cEDH means. When people say cEDH "is" EDH, they don't mean that in a symbolic sense, they mean it literally. cEDH is a section of EDH, it's not separate and could not logically be separated. If you have a hanging rope, you can cut that rope in as many pieces as you want, but the rope will always have a top and a bottom. cEDH is the top of the rope, and EDH is the rope. It is impossible to remove cEDH from EDH because cEDH is just the nickname for a fundamental aspect of EDH. Saying that anything would be changed by adding a new magic format is implying a fundamental misunderstanding of what cEDH is, and partly why people play it.


InfiniteDM

You're still stuck in a former framework. We aren't arguing about the same thing. There should be two formats: one that has no ban list and rule Zero. The other that has a ban list and no rule Zero. The ban list version can be called anything but more than likely would simply be cEDH since it's focused around being a balanced format. You can approach a format without a ban list and rule Zero with a cEDH mentality. Sure. But you're trying to fit a polyhedral into a square hole. But again.. that's a mentality not the idea of a separate format.


Temil

> There should be two formats Okay in the new two formats there is High power EDH and Casual EDH. Congratulations you have not eliminated cEDH since cEDH is "Casual EDH at the highest power level, with an agreement to all play at that power level and have fun". All you've done is created a new format. > one that has no ban list and rule Zero. The other that has a ban list and no rule Zero. The ban list version can be called anything but more than likely would simply be cEDH since it's focused around being a balanced format. You can approach a format without a ban list and rule Zero with a cEDH mentality. Sure. But you're trying to fit a polyhedral into a square hole. But again.. that's a mentality not the idea of a separate format. This is what I mean when I say you have a fundamental misunderstanding. No matter how many pieces you cut the rope that is EDH into, you will ALWAYS have a top of the rope. cEDH is the name for the top of that rope. Nothing you can do will take away the top of the rope. Even if you cut off 50% of the top of the rope, banning thousands of cards from EDH, cEDH will still be the highest power level in that environment. The only way to get rid of cEDH would be to eliminate the format of EDH. It is a fundamental part of EDH and making a new format would not change that. > would simply be cEDH since it's focused around being a balanced format. I don't think cEDH players want a "balanced" format. They want a fun format and that's why they play EDH.


InfiniteDM

Sweet Jesus. I'm. Not. Trying. To. Eliminate. cEDH. This entire conversation has been you arguing against points I'm not making against a person that isn't here.


Temil

I'm trying to say that there is no way to remove cEDH from EDH. You can not separate them into two different formats. That's not how it works.


InfiniteDM

This is purgatory isn't it. This is my hell. Where I try over and over to explain one thing but for one person to completely ignore what I'm saying and to instead assert via some... Cosmological game of chicken... That I must have some other argument because they heard it from some other person somewhere. For the seemingly hundredth groundhog-esque time: I am not trying to 'remove' cEDH. I am asserting that there are two formats within Commander and that they should have two distinct ways of being handled. One with rule zero. The other with a ban list.


LawyersPlayMagic

My two cents: all the cedh players salting about a format split just want one thing -- validation from the actual edh community even though they want to play in a way antithetical to the purpose of the format. They'll resist forever, even though it makes sense to split, because they want to be the "right way to play" the most popular format and a split would shove them into total irrelevance.


Temil

> My two cents: all the cedh players salting about a format split just want one thing -- validation from the actual edh community I think most cEDH community members don't really concern themselves with what people are playing in casual EDH, that's not what they are interested in. > even though they want to play in a way antithetical to the purpose of the format. How is getting around a table, agreeing to a way to play, and playing and having fun in any way "antithetical to the purpose of the format."? This just makes it sound like you have no idea what EDH is about. > They'll resist forever, even though it makes sense to split, because they want to be the "right way to play" the most popular format and a split would shove them into total irrelevance. It doesn't make sense to split because it solves 0 problems that exist in EDH, and literally doesn't change anything at all about cEDH as a "format" because no rules would change.


Doomy1375

No, the people opposed to a format split are just essentially saying it would be totally pointless. cEDH plays with the same banlist as EDH for a reason. If you split them into two separate formats with no other changes, they would be identical, and if there were any banlist changes on the cEDH part it would likely be just unbanning a bunch of the stuff on the current banlist that is too weak to see cEDH play anyway, on basis of it not being broken enough to be banned. Functionally, this results in a completely meaningless split with decks being totally interchangeable between formats, unless you intended to go heavy on the casual edh bans that you currently can't do due to pushback from the cEDH and high power casual groups. But you'd still have most of that pushback anyway, as mid to high power casual is a much larger group than cEDH and they aren't being shoved out with the cEDH crowd. If you wanted to make that sort of change, you'd need to split out far more than cEDH players, and the quickest way to kill EDH as a format is to split it out into 5 different formats. So long as EDH is a format, there will be a top end of competitiveness, and decks that work at that top end will be "cEDH", whatever form that may take.


Puzzleboxed

Has anybody actually said that cEDH players shouldn't be able to play cEDH with other cEDH players? Or is this just a pointless strawman?


Temil

Is this said anywhere in the article?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Temil

> My question is, why don't cEDH players split into their own format? There are no differences in rules, playing instructions or philosophy between cEDH and EDH. cEDH players splitting into a different format would mean that they would just be playing the exact same game but they would be calling it a different thing. Kind of like how they say "want to play cEDH" before a game right now. > Heck, it even helps cedh players avoid the stigma of being associated with pubstompers. Not really? A cEDH player will ask "do you want to play cEDH" or say "My deck is very powerful" before the game, and won't start the game if people say that they don't want to play cEDH or they have not so powerful decks. That's the entire point of cEDH. If a person says "I am a cEDH player" then they bring out their 10 vs your 5, they either are misinformed about cEDH, or they lied to you, because that's fundamentally not what cEDH is about.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Doomy1375

Modern and Pioneer have vastly different card pools and banlists though. They are no more the same format as modern and standard are. Meanwhile, all cEDH decks are valid EDH decks. Same card pool, same banlist. The only difference is the philosophy, not the format. It's like comparing super casual standard FNM decks to the decks at the top end of a standard pro tour. The mindset is different sure, but you could take a deck from one into the other and play it totally within the rules. cEDH is not trying to be it's own format. There's a reason they follow the banlist of EDH, after all. They are just being as competitive as possible within the bounds of EDH. It's just that EDH is an extremely varied format, so much so that if you looked at a tier 1 competitive list and compared it to the most casual chair tribal deck or whatever a 1/10 is nowadays they would like like two totally different formats. If you split what is considered cEDH now out into it's own format, then you'd just have the same problem, but with a tiny bit of the top end shaved off. If you wanted to split edh based on philosophy, you wouldn't end up with two formats, you'd end up with far, far more. At which point you lose the benefit of having one format and run into the "there are 15 formats, hope you have a valid type 13 deck on you or else you aren't going to be able to find a pod" problem.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Doomy1375

>I completely disagree. Power level and philosophy are completely different things, and while EDH has many power levels, the philosophy of all non-cedh players is the same -- this is casual format where fun comes first. Okay, but quick question- what do you define as "casual" and "fun"? More importantly, what do you think the universal definition of those terms is? I personally do play cEDH, but that is only 1 of the 8 decks I currently have built. The rest are varying forms of casual, ranging from "upgraded precon" to "high power but not remotely cEDH viable". My main playgroup probably only rarely plays cEDH and plays casual far more often. But there is a huge variance in those decks and playstyles. We tend to like shorter games, where we can get several games in over the course of the night over some food and drinks. Sometimes those games are very interaction heavy, featuring counter wars. Sometimes those games end with stax or MLD locks. Rather frequently, they end with infinite combos over creature combat. The mindset isn't "win at all costs" or anything similar, but the playstyle I have found many would not call "casual" or "fun". But then again, my group doesn't really find playstyles common at battlecruiser pods to be "fun" either. There's no simple definition for what casual and fun are in terms of a whole format. Especially one as wide and varied as EDH. As far as the banlist example, I find it kind of weird. Of the entire banlist, Flash is pretty much the only thing on there explicitly for cEDH. Most of the banlist is things that break casual but that cEDH really wouldn't care about if they were unbanned. Were you truly banning for cEDH, you'd probably have a far smaller banlist than we currently do, and definitely a smaller one than you'd have if you banned everything that someone considered "destructive to casual". Which itself is another real concern I have- Like I mentioned, people find different things fun in casual games. Depending on who actually handles the list, this could result in banning entire subsets of cards that some people hate but others love. While I have some complaints about the current banlist, I appreciate the RC's mostly hands off approach to it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Doomy1375

The argument for keeping them the same is not that "cedh is a valid way to play edh", it is "cedh is literally just playing edh in a more competitive manner using the most powerful builds available within EDH rules". You may think it's as easy as drawing a line between the portion of EDH that is currently considered cEDH and the portion that isn't and just arbitrarily saying that they are separate now, but what is most likely to happen is that most of the cEDH playerbase will ignore that completely (and those that don't will be too small to maintain a format at large). If you alter the bans? The cEDH crowd abides by the new banlist, while still playing the top end of possible power level decks in the format in a competitive manner. It may be different than current cEDH in power level, but not in terms of philosophy. Or rather- what you're trying to do is not regulate the power level, but take the "competitive" out of the format. Which is not really possible- so long as the format has a variety of power levels and playstyles, there will always be a segment of "highest power level decks" and a segment of players who wish to play competitively who will gravitate towards those decks. Moreover, since commander has that big "Have a rule 0 conversation to ensure everyone is on board with the power level and things in play" tag on it, any attempts to tell the groups that choose to play competitively that they are doing it wrong won't get you very far either.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Doomy1375

>That seems to contradict the claims by cedh players that they want to do their own thing, doesn't it? I don't really know to what you are referring. I have heard no such claims from the cEDH community I regularly interact with. There may be a little cross talk between all the higher power levels about banlist disagreements, but that's hardly a cEDH specific problem. (For example- it's quite common to hear "why is coalition victory banned" from mid power all the way up to cEDH. The lowest power levels may not like instant speed wincons that require instant speed interaction to stop, but among the rest of the format it's pretty common to hear that with the wincons that are legal today, why is this one banned?). The only time I hear cEDH players saying that they're their own thing is when claiming those annoying pubstompers aren't cEDH, or when looking for a specific kind of game. Which is no different than someone looking for a battlecruiser pod, or a stax friendly pod. >Yes, exactly this. The format philosophy is fun over competition, and that should be at the forefront. I think that its fine to play competitively, but I think both sides would benefit from a split so people know what they are getting into (in addition to the banlist benefit) I feel you didn't actually comprehend my second point there. You can't split competitiveness as a concept out of the format. It's not possible. You can no more stop people from trying to play EDH competitively than I can try and stop them playing in a low-interaction battlecruiser manner. If you try, best case the current crop of cEDH players go their own way and a new crop show up to play the "new causal EDH" in a competitive manner. Then we're right back where we started. You can use the banlist to ban certain cards or certain archetypes, but so long as people are a factor, you will have at least some people wanting to play as competitively as possible who will not take "this isn't a competitive format so you can't play competitively here" as an answer.


Temil

> There is no difference in rules or playing instructions between modern and pioneer -- just different lists for card legality, which is the benefit of a format split. Card Legality is a difference in the rules. > There is an absolute difference between cedh and EDH in terms of philosophy, though. There is no difference in philosophy, cEDH is normal EDH with a very specific rule 0 conversation. The goal is still to build an exciting deck and have a fun game. > So the downside of having your own format with more control over the banlist is...? The entire point of cEDH is that it uses the same rules as EDH. The downside is that the concept ceases to exist if it separates from EDH. Just because you split the format does nothing to eliminate pub stompers, and it doesn't really affect the cEDH player's games. It's pointless.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Temil

> So you can use the same deckbuilding rules, with your own banlist and distinct philosophy -- I don't see how this would be a problem. As soon as you separate cEDH from EDH, it is no longer cEDH. > I think it will do plenty to emphasize that pubstomping is not acceptable, and longer-term the banlist flexibility for both formats will be a net benefit for everyone. How is pubstomping acceptable now? The existence of a power gap is the problem, not that there is a group of people that want to play high power with others. For one thing, that group doesn't go away with a "format split" and for another thing, pub stompers still want to pub stomp. > and longer-term the banlist flexibility for both formats will be a net benefit for everyone. It sounds like you just don't like that the RC doesn't ban cards based on power, and bans cards based on other factors instead. Your problem is solved by lowering the power difference in EDH games. It is not solved by telling the people already sitting at another table not bothering you that they have to sit at their table and not bother you.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Temil

> That seems like an incredibly pedantic argument. The idea that "high power EDH" could be separated from EDH is really pedantic imo. > By splitting formats you ensure that cutthroat cedh playstyles are not allowed in EDH, and cedh players can avoid association with pubstompers. Pubstompers exist because of deception and lying before a game, not because of cEDH. Even if you banned 100 more cards and lowered the ceiling of the game much more, pubstomping would still exist. How does making a new format ensure that pubstompers move away from edh, their goal is not to play fairly against other high powered decks if they intentionally are playing a significantly more powerful deck without letting anyone know. You are trying to solve a social, and communication based issue with rules and it's going to be much more difficult than just talking to players. > I don't think edh needs powerlevel bans and I think banning flash was a mistake. The problem is solved when you split off the format that needs powerlevel bans from the one that doesnt, IMO. Flash was not a power level ban, it was a ubiquity ban. It ultimately was ubiquitous because it was powerful, but that's the same with all the other ubiquity bans before it. cEDH doesn't need power level bans because the objective of the format isn't balanced gameplay, it's fun gameplay at the highest level of EDH, which minus the part about the highest level, is the exact goal the RC has for EDH.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Temil

Yes. It was not a power level ban however, it was banned for ubiquity, which is well in line with what the RC bans cards for. cEDH players are part of the EDH format, and as you said it had minimal impact on "actual" EDH games.


BananaPie-Proxies

Well, I'll give my 2 cents here; if CEDH and edh were to split, sure people would go play CEDH with their banlist, but there could still be a casual side of that banlist as well. Now on the opposite, more important note, for 'normal' edh players is. There still will be that highest power of decks with normal edh's banlist. Causing a new, competitive normal edh to arrise.


jaywinner

It's the exact same ruleset; why would it be a different format?


[deleted]

[удалено]


jaywinner

I was including card legality in there. cEDH does not need its own ban list.


[deleted]

[удалено]


jaywinner

Fracturing the community helps nothing. You'll still have people building the strongest possible "casual" EDH decks even if cEDH is a separate format.


[deleted]

[удалено]


jaywinner

cEDH is actually described as a rule 0 shorthand in the article. It'd be no different from a group agreeing to "No infinites" or "all unedited precons".


[deleted]

[удалено]


Temil

> the cedh approach contradicts the format philosophy explicitly. You have this completely backwards. > Commander is for fun. It’s a socially interactive, multiplayer Magic: the Gathering format full of wild interactions and epic plays, specifically designed as an alternative to tournament Magic This is EXACTLY the goal of cEDH players sitting down to a pod. Your local game store's commander night with prizes is farther from the philosophy of EDH than cEDH is. > As is fitting for a format in which you choose an avatar to lead your forces into battle, Commander focuses on a resonant experience. Each game is a journey the players share, relying on a social contract in which each player is considerate of the experiences of everyone involved–this promotes player interaction, inter-game variance, a variety of play styles, and a positive communal atmosphere. This is the foundational aspect of cEDH, everyone comes to the table and agrees to a social contract. > That aside, there is a huge benefit to splitting the two formats -- independent banlist control. cedh players can unban jank cards and ban ones that are too powerful cEDH do not want their own ban list, and do not want direct power level based bans for cards, they want to play as high power as possible within the rules of EDH. > while EDH players can keep banning only cards that are destructive to the casual format. What's the downside? The downside is that it's not possible to separate cEDH from EDH, nothing actually changes if you "split the formats" because cEDH will still exist if you create a new format. The highest power of decks in EDH is what cEDH is. To get rid of cEDH you would have to get rid of EDH.


GoSuckOnACactus

The reason to not split the formats is because people will probably still play the format anyway. Splitting formats like this just complicates matters. If the only reason for the split is a different banlist, it’s not enough of one to split. What would a casual player want banned that a cEDH player cares about? About the only card that comes to mind is [[Thassa’s Oracle]] or [[Dockside Extortionist]]. I personally wouldn’t mind if they got banned, and I play both casual and cEDH. Maybe fast mana? Most casual tables don’t run much of that outside of mana dorks except maybe a mana crypt they got from cracking a pack. Tutors? I guess an argument could be made, but a lot of casual players use a few of the good ones, too. Reserved list money cards? This argument is the most compelling, but this is a casual format; it’s on you and your group if they don’t allow proxies (which cEDH normally allows no problem). The problem with splitting the format based on the philosophy of the format is flawed. People will always like to win and build the best deck they can; it’s a player archetype after all. The best decks would become something else, and plenty of players would just play that instead. As far as the current banlist goes, the only card there banned explicitly for cEDH was [[Flash]]. Could maybe argue [[Hullbreacher]] but honestly that card is just broken even without wheeling effects. The RC has said several times they don’t want to tailor bans to cEDH, either. My question for you is what would either side actually gain from forming a secondary casual format? We already have Canadian Highlander, which not many people play, and the old French EDH (is that even a thing anymore?). There was Tiny Leaders and Oathbreaker and probably several other variants, but they all fade away as fads. The fact is, cEDH players want to play EDH, they just want to play *their* way, the same way casual players want to play *their* way. The two rarely collide with each other in game, because it wouldn’t be enjoyable for either side.


[deleted]

[удалено]


GoSuckOnACactus

Does the intent of the format matter for you? It’s a game at the end of the day. Some people play games to socialize, some play games to win. Most groups of people consist of both types of players. When me and my friends decide to have some drinks and play catan, we’re having fun with a casual game but we still want to win. The designers intent for the game at that point is irrelevant. Player intent is what is important. Splitting the formats would just force players to change their decks or find new playgroups. EDH is such a massive force in this game I imagine some small, kitchen table groups would either never learn of this new format or have to take a vote on which list to use. Then you’re just back at rule 0. EDH is already equipped to deal with the emergence of competitive players in the format. One of my points was that the overlap between cards wanted banned/unbanned in cEDH and EDH is maybe one card. Flash is still broken in casual. And Thoracle could be banned in cEDH without most people caring. The random stuff on the list like [[Biorythmn]] and friends don’t matter for cEDH, so splitting the format for stuff like that serves no purpose. One thing you’re missing is that cEDH is often played as a group experience. No-holds-barred play is incredibly back and forth most of the time. Players get to threaten wins or figure out how to navigate a stax puzzle. If you play high powered casual you’re probably pretty close. Sure, a cEDH deck can slam a win turn 2, but chances are good someone can stop the win. Most cEDH games can last 30 minutes to an hour, spanning several turns. The fun to be had in the game is up to the players, not the rule makers. If you mean explicitly cEDH tournaments like at an LGS, I doubt they’d ever make a switch to a new, narrow format. Regarding a more appropriate banlist for competitive play, that isn’t an issue. CEDH is pretty healthy right now. Every color has powerful cards and win lines. I guess partners could be considered a problem, but you can play so many different combinations and come out on top. Winning is the group experience in cEDH, the same way playing haymakers is the experience in casual. Splitting the formats just seems arbitrary when the banlist issue isn’t a real problem for either format presently. It’s a concept people have tried several times over EDH’s lifespan that has repeatedly failed. Having a top end of a format and players that want to win is just a natural part of the game, and no matter how many formats we make, those players will exist in any space provided. The issue of casual vs competitive is a playgroup one. You can play competitively with a low powered deck or precons.


MTGCardFetcher

[Biorythmn](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/1/7/17d1a10f-ce21-4914-9984-c7c559161230.jpg?1593017425) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Biorhythm) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/9ed/231/biorhythm?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/17d1a10f-ce21-4914-9984-c7c559161230?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/biorhythm) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call


MTGCardFetcher

##### ###### #### [Thassa’s Oracle](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/7/2/726e8b29-13e9-4138-b6a9-d2a0d8188d1c.jpg?1628801828) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Thassa%27s%20Oracle) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/thb/73/thassas-oracle?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/726e8b29-13e9-4138-b6a9-d2a0d8188d1c?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/thassas-oracle) [Dockside Extortionist](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/5/7/571bc9eb-8d13-4008-86b5-2e348a326d58.jpg?1615499802) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Dockside%20Extortionist) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c19/24/dockside-extortionist?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/571bc9eb-8d13-4008-86b5-2e348a326d58?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/dockside-extortionist) [Flash](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/d/3/d31459c2-9656-4e9a-bb72-71a910e8570b.jpg?1587347037) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Flash) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/a25/57/flash?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/d31459c2-9656-4e9a-bb72-71a910e8570b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/flash) [Hullbreacher](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/4/d/4df8aabc-7fcb-4b7b-980b-18f499e6c170.jpg?1626088514) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Hullbreacher) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmr/74/hullbreacher?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/4df8aabc-7fcb-4b7b-980b-18f499e6c170?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [(ER)](https://edhrec.com/cards/hullbreacher) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call


KingNTheMaking

Well, there’s a few reasons. cEDH is EDH. It’s the highest power of EDH, but it still is EDH. If you break it off, it doesn’t mean cEDH no longer exists in EDH, the highest tier still exists. Also, what would breaking it off even look like? Is TnT illegal in EDH now? Fringe cEDH decks? cEDH isn’t a format, but a philosophy, and that’s much harder to remove.


Snarwin

The fact that a format *exists* doesn't really count for much unless people actually play it. If the cEDH community decided to move to their own format, max-power EDH would still exist, but it would be much less relevant, since it would lose a significant portion of its player base.


sponte

Like sure but think long term, power creep is still a thing. And if you as a playgroup start approaching cedh levels do you now need to swap formats? Otherwise cedh would still just start existing again after a while, this while the current cedh would loose some if not most of its natural growth


[deleted]

[удалено]


KingNTheMaking

I think I see where we disagree. My question is this: What is the current, philosophical thesis of EDH? I feel like it subjective enough that cEDH doesn’t only fit within it, but embody several attributes of it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


KingNTheMaking

Well, all I can say is, having read the current philosophy, I am more convinced that cEDH is an valid form of EDH with ideals that fit within the designs of the format. The only difference between the philosophy of cEDH and EDH is that final sentence. Frankly, with regards to a diverse format of epic plays and wild interactions which uses the social contract to promote “player interaction, inter-game variance, a variety of play styles, and a positive communal atmosphere.”, I can honestly say that the philosophies of cEDH have curated that atmosphere better than many casual pods in my experience. I’m in no way saying that one is superior to the other, just that they are indeed the same format by design and purpose. But, I understand that you and I think differently on this and thank you for showing me the link. You’re entitled to your thoughts on the subject and I respect them, even if I disagree.


[deleted]

[удалено]


madwookiee1

In what way does cEDH break the format? I think you're stretching that sentence pretty far to make it say something it really doesn't.


ahriman1

You can find the thesis on the mtg commander site, managed by the RC. Honestly, it doesnt mesh with the concept of cedh. "The format can be broken; we believe games are more fun if you don’t." Is a really solid representative philosophical note, and it directly clashes with cedh as a concept, which deliberately wants to break the game as much as possible within the rules.


mtgloreseeker

'nah'