cPDH Guide

[cPDH.guide]’s metadata collection is thorough and continuous. Articles written by [cPDH.guide]’s mod team are based on this data. It is our commitment to the cPDH online community to continue enhancing the depth and quality of our content. All tournament data presented via [cPDH.guide] is reported by online tournament organizers and their participants. Within our articles, some arguments are made for which content volume is still being collected. We will update and cite the data of this subject matter as data collection volume allows. Thank you, and please, enjoy the article. 🙂

Turns 4-6: “The Mid-Game.” 

Forgive my indulgence: I’ll make my claim that The Mid-Game is the most exciting part of any multiplayer game, especially in cPDH. This stage brings out the uniqueness of multiplayer game theory more than any other. When you combine these dynamics with cPDH’s framework… In my 25 years of playing Magic, there’s truly nothing sweeter than this. .

Negotiate to Live.

“Let us build bridges, not walls.” — Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968)

Though an experienced player would keep their opponents’ actions in sight at all times, it’s during The Mid-Game where most players’ attention is able to shift from their own development to their opponents’ actions. By now, mana bases, early tutors, and core board states should be set. With their houses in order, players should have enough information to start to make decisions to act against one another. 

Newton’s third law of motion states that for every action, there’s an equal and opposite reaction. 

With multiple players armed and ready at the table, how players react to one another’s actions affects who lives or dies. This is where the art of negotiation comes into play. 

In multiplayer games of Magic: the Gathering, our ability to negotiate correlates to our ability to win. The question most players ask: How do I get to the place where I can win the game? Statistically speaking, that place is The Late Game. Negotiating with your opponents is the key to getting there. 

Negotiating: it’s meaning and function

Let’s get some clarity:  what do we mean by Negotiating? …let’s define it as ‘the ability to reason with others effectively to come to agreeable terms.” Notice how I didn’t say ‘sales’ or ‘politics’… both of those words carry negative connotations that are often placed by frustrated, lesser-skilled practitioners. Effective negotiation comes from excellent communicative skills and shrewd actions. It also stems from the ability to understand your own needs and the needs of your opponents. 

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” —Sun Tzu (554-496 BCE)

In a future article, we will explore tactics of negotiation and attempt to give the subject matter the wide berth that it deserves. For now, at surface, we’ll admire the beautiful gift we’ve all been given in the Mid-Game: we now have both player awareness and a developed game state, one that each of us are able to color however we see fit. Become a beautiful painter, and an even better art critic.

“The vulgar crowd is always taken by appearances, and the world consists chiefly of the vulgar.” -Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527)

I’ll advise everyone to pay close attention in negotiations:
– What does each player say or do…?
– What nonverbal queues (or clues) are they providing you?
– A great giveaway: How and to whom is damage placed?

Segue – The Role of Damage

In order to continue, I’ll ask the reader to consider the role of Damage as a negotiation tactic rather than its surface value of trying to make someone ‘lose’ points. We’re not playing for ‘points’ necessarily until there’s only one opponent left… and when there’s only one opponent left, there’s no one left to negotiate with. 

With multiple opponents at your table, embrace the following paradigm shift around damage:
– Damage is a leverage tool against longevity.
– Combat damage is leverage against longevity, with options.

In combat, the defending player can either lessen their longevity or lose potentially damaging permanent(s) to preserve longevity.

The biggest enemy of longevity is what I call a Noisy Weapon. Noisy weapons draw significant negative attention to themselves in exchange for speed. They paint themselves red, asking ‘have a solution or perish to me.’ This form of self-inflicted target painting (whether intended or not) writes a losing social contract from the wielder to the table, making all others feel vulnerable in negotiations against them. 

Some examples of noisy threats include:
– Infect
– Early Combo Pieces
– Notorious Commanders

On paper, these aggressive strategies present a bold and swift path to secure victory. The irony is the insecurity felt by other players is met in stride to the wielder; when their weapons are revealed and they become a noisy focal point and scapegoat at the table. When this happens, their asset becomes a liability; the wielder of a noisy weapon is placed at a terrible disadvantage diplomatically, as they are often treated as public enemy number one.

Until ‘the threat’ has been minimized or deflected, players will often seek security in one another, coalescing against the wielder. If you are ostracized in this way at the Mid-Game, you significantly decrease your chances of making it into The Late Game with the rest of them. Additionally, the wielder is placed on the backfoot if their opponents’ have more combined interaction available to match the wielder’s threat protection.

Exception to the Rule:
Some decks in the format seek to create an environment where they can afford to simply not care about their ability to negotiate with the table.
The most successful of these are the “Mean Decks” that oppress the table’s ability to interact. By doing so, they aren’t as vulnerable to retaliation from their opponents.

“(Opponents) ought either to be caressed or crushed; for if you merely offend them, they take vengeance, but if you injure them greatly they are unable to retaliate.” -Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527)

Previous builds of Hollow Marauder and occasionally, Abdel-Black are two examples that come to mind that consistently incorporate these tactics. Choosing to pilot these noisy decks comes with inherent social contracts; they have built their own noisy reputation(s) which are exposed to the table on Turn 0.

Returning from our Segue

In the Mid-Game is where dialogue becomes the most interactive as each opponents’ boards and hands have developed into tangible threats. A cunning player will use this information to negotiate their way to The Late Game. Those who don’t, tend to be eliminated before the rest. Some would argue that the first eliminated player is often considered the least necessary ally for each player to win, or, is the clear and present danger to all three players equally at the table.

In Closing

Ignore the power of negotiation at your own risk, for a table with three opponents and no allies in the Mid-Game will most likely decrease one’s chance of reaching the Late Game, and in turn, dramatically increase the odds of one’s own demise.

Welcome back my friends to the next phase of our cPDH multiplayer game theory: Stages of the Game article series!
Today we cover The Early Game where we explore objectively Turns 0-3 in a competitive PDH pod game.

I will warn the reader: this topic is monstrous in size.
Feel free to read about The Early Game the following in partitions, should you choose to do so:

1) Turn 0: Before the game begins

2) Turns 1-2: Creating the base

3) Turn 3: Beginning to interact

Before we start, I’ll once again preface our article by saying that this theory is meant to serve as a frame of reference to help guide a player’s understanding of the environment in which they are playing.
There are exceptions to every rule.
I’m hopeful that this information from these articles are beneficial to you and your cPDH gameplay experience.

Excellent!
Let’s begin today’s topic before the beginning, with Turn 0.

Turn 0: Before the game begins

Some would argue that this is the most important ‘Turn’ of the game, which is ironically not a “Turn” at all.
Turn 0 is a very unique and very important space in the game to be taken full advantage of, as it is the only space where the 90 minute time limit isn’t applied to your actions. 

…it is in this space where players have the most time available to them to think and respond to information.
…it is in this space also where slow play rules cannot apply to player banter.
…it is in this space where each players’ initial impressions are formed of one another.

…it is often in this space where the ongoing process of ‘threat assessment’ begins.

Because of this, some would argue that Turn 0 is where the most information of a game is gathered all at once (including but not limited to): 

a. Seat position

b. Player/Pilot (Réputation & Savoir Faire)

c. Mulligans taken

d. Commander selection

Let’s look further into these points and how they can impact the game.

a. Seat Position:

In cPDH, we know that pods are regulated to four players seated at the ‘table,’ taking their respective turns in a clockwise rotation, repeating the process for each round.

The greater cPDH community uses the collective word “Turn” to describe a ’round of turns.’ (i.e. Turn 2, Seat 1 would be the beginning of Round 2 whereas Turn 3, Seat 4’s end step would initiate the table’s “Turn 4” to begin, etc. Frankly, I wish we used the term “Rounds” to differentiate, but here we are.) 

Similar to track set lanes in Olympic foot races, there are advantages and disadvantages to each starting position in cPDH: In terms of board development, Seat 1 begins the game with an automatic advantage to play ahead of the other 3 players.
Although early board development is universally beneficial to all archetypes, some would argue that the archetypes of Combo and Aggro tend to be at a greater advantage than Midrange and Control from early board development.

In terms of making informed decisions/responses, Seat 4 begins the game with the greatest advantage to play in response to the other 3 players (especially in the Mid and Late Stages of the game).
Though making informed decisions/responses is universally beneficial to all archetypes, some would argue that the archetypes of Control and Midrange (even more so for Control) tend to be at an advantage over Combo and/or Aggro strategies from making well-informed/well-timed decisions/responses.

In ascending and descending sequential order, the converse is true for all players and archetypes in the areas of board development and making informed decisions.

The meta data on [cPDH.Guide] offers a look into seat position and its impact on win rate.
Seat 1 tends to be the favored/most advantaged position, followed by Seat 2, Seat 3, and Seat 4 in descending order.
Seat 4 tends to win half as often as Seat 1.

Some would argue Seat Position is often overlooked in competitive play when determining likelihood of success.
Wasting this information on Turn 0 will likely increase your chances of losing the game.

When communicating and ‘politicking,’ it is advisable that you empower yourself with this information in order to guide your own skill development of Savoir Faire in this precious window of time: Turn 0.


b. Player/Pilot (Réputation & Savoir Faire):

This particular topic has a near infinite amount of depth to it.
To explore it properly is beyond the scope of today’s article.
It will be done the justice it deserves in its own featured [cPDH.guide] article in the future.
For today, we’ll keep to the surface.

At any stage of the game, player communication and their behavior patterns tell all. Truly.
Players are always communicating with one another.
To be clear: even the act of not communicating in a situation, is communicative to your opponents at the table.

As previously mentioned, Turn 0 provides the most time in any game for players to communicate with one another.
In this crucial moment of the game, players often speak to their opening position(s) of strength or weakness.

Take these communicated examples about a starting hand:

(displaying strength)
Player 1, Sitting back in their chair: “Well, this hand will do.”

(displaying weakness without a mulligan)
Player 2, Fumbling about: “This (hand) is so-so… I’ll risk it; let’s see how this plays out.”

(displaying weakness with three mulligans)
Player 3, On their third Mulligan: “I guess I’ll have to give this a try.”

In a game with more than one opponent, player communication dynamics often take a body of their own. Ignoring these dynamics, or being underprepared to read them can be the pitfall of any player brave enough to step into the gauntlet.

It should also be noted that a great deal of player communication is  entirely non-verbal:

a) Two blue mana untapped could be a classic bluff (or not) to keep a player at bay, or it could be bait to force an untimely action.
b) A player reveals a removal spell in hand during an opponent’s move-to-combat to influence their opponent’s attack step.

These subtle messages between players are often where some 1v1 format enthusiasts reach points of contention with multiplayer matches as they’d prefer to remove Poker elements from their familiar game of Cardboard Chess.

It should be noted further: Managing the emotions of players at the table is an important tactic to winning at all stages of the game.

We’ll keep it there for now, but note that there are countless examples that we could expand on, but our take home message for today is this: Player communication has an indirect (and sometimes direct) impact on game actions.
The most time allowed for these actions is in the Early Game… specifically on Turn 0, before the game begins.

c. Mulligans Taken:

In our previous example, mulligans tell a story to the table.
It could hint to luck (or lack thereof).
How a player Mulligans their hand could hint at their chosen deck archetype.
More than any other archetype: Combo is searching for specific cards in order to win the game.
A deep mulligan could ‘tilt one’s hand’ and provide a clear giveaway to this archetype.
Conversely, a shallow or unused mulligan could lead one to believe in an optimal hand, or an archetype that doesn’t lean this way: possibly a non-combo build.

Going back to the previous opening hand communication examples:

(displaying strength)
Player 1, Sitting back in their chair: “Well, this hand will do.”

(displaying weakness without a mulligan)
Player 2, Fumbling about: “This (hand) is so-so… I’ll risk it; let’s see how this plays out.”

(displaying weakness with three mulligans)
Player 3, On their third Mulligan: “I guess I’ll have to give this a try.”

How many times did a Player 2 mulligan in order to say those words?
What does that hint to me about them?
… About their willingness to lie?
Perhaps they aren’t lying at all… but they need a certain card in hand for the Mid Game and are sacrificing an Optimal Early Game setup instead. Is this player impulsive or over-calculating in their judgement?
How will that impact my ability to negotiate with them throughout the game?

Most importantly, for any player: are they likely to be more threatening in the Early, Mid, or Late Stage(s) of the game given the information provided?

All of this communication pairs well with our granted knowledge of Commander Selection.

d. Commander Selection:

Nearly every Commander tells a story.
Not only by hinting at color combination(s) but also at potential engines or key components for a deck to function.
Note that whatever is in the command zone is the card that the player selected to have access to at all times.

Over time, some commanders have developed their own reputation and stereotypes that may disadvantage their pilot.

To name a few notorious examples across the archetype spectrum:
– Malcolm // Kediss  (a tempo/control deck)
– Abdel Adrian // Agent of the Iron Throne (flicker-engine; absolute time-suck at the table)

– Abdel Adrian // Sword Coast Sailor (flicker-engine; control/combo)
– Gretchen Turnwillow (a control/combo deck)
– Gut, True Soul // Inspiring Leader (pure value aggro-engine)
– Hollow Marauder (devastating control)

It’s in Turn 0 that you are given a wealth of knowledge as to which seat position they hold, how these pilots choose to communicate, how they choose to mulligan, and to which commanders, colors, and indicative strategies they represent.

Compiled together, this information gathering becomes an invaluable info-dump to the table as to each person’s starting position and how one should begin their approach to Turns 1-2.

“The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy not coming, but on our readiness to receive (them)… -Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Turns 1-2: Creating the base

Crucial and often uneventful as it is to create a mana base, it is usually in Turns 1-2 where the foundation of your board state begins… or doesn’t begin. 

In most Turns 1-2, players are focused almost entirely on their own board development – specifically around their mana base and/or replacing cards they’ve used to establish said mana base.

They do this either via ramp cards, mana fixing cards, and/or card draw.

To be fair, if someone was going to be entirely focused on themselves at any stage of the game, this would be the place to do it. Turns 1-2 are the least likely places for a game to be won or lost in cPDH.

Though empirical data has yet to be captured to defend this statement, some would argue that Turn 3 is often the earliest place for interaction or spot-removal to begin in a game.

If a deck is fast enough, this could provide for a window of opportunity to steal a game with an early win-condition before players are able to interact. However, our current meta data shows that these events are highly unlikely in cPDH.

When crafting and/or ‘goldfishing’ a deck… Turns 1-2 are often played out more than any other set of turns.

It is to be assumed that players will be underprepared for interaction in these two turns.

A word of caution: it should be known that any board interaction anywhere in the Early Stage of the game can often appear ‘preemptive’ akin to ‘bullying’ which can have dramatic impacts on your ability to survive into The Late Game.

Rely heavily on your communicative skills to allow for this interaction for fear of retaliation from your opponent(s).

Turn 3: Beginning to interact

The format has gotten faster in recent years.
Some would argue that if players have their ‘heads down’ in the first two turns of the game, that they lift their heads up by Turn 3.

Though the meta data is not yet captured information to support this claim: some would argue that Turn 3 is often where the earliest combat and/or interaction between players begins.

Some would also argue that by Turn 3, players have gained enough information to perceive a ‘threat’ or ‘threats’ at the table.

And though in most circumstances, a tempo/combo deck will seek to tutor for specific cards as quickly as possible, some would argue that when playing on-curve, Turn 3 is the most likely turn to see a tutor for an essential card to be found, and consequently, revealed to the table (as most tutors in this format force a reveal.)

Turn 3 is most often where the final stage of the Early Game is found; where players now begin to develop, interact, and cause damage to one another, but necessarily in a permanent or unrecoverable way.

The Early Game is where the savvy, most subtle negotiations begin.
A word of caution to the under-practiced, overt communicator: it is in the Early Stage of the game where hyper communication can often be viewed as ‘preemptive’ and can accidentally paint the messenger to be like a fly in the table’s soup.
Some just want the noise to go away.
Don’t give them a reason to think you are ‘noisy.’

That concludes our commentary and dive into The Early Game.
I want to thank you for reading.
I hope that this information has been helpful, and thought-provoking!
If you like the content of this article, be sure to tune in for the next chapter as we delve deeper into our article series on Stages of the Game, exploring one of the most dynamic stages of cPDH gameplay: The Mid-Game; Turns 4-6.

Thank you again.
I’m your author, BeachBodGod69, signing off!

Magic: The Gathering is a masterpiece of strategy and intrigue; “it’s the best game, ever… ever created.” –Post Malone

I couldn’t agree more. People adore Magic. Whether it’s the stunning artwork, the variety of gameplay, or the immense lore… it’s no wonder that the franchise has been in print for over 30 years.

As a game, Magic: The Gathering continues to evolve. Back in the 90’s and early 2000’s, we had the Magic Pro Tour, featuring Type 2  (as we used to call it, back in the day)… with organized play, game theory and card development all shaped around this fiercely competitive 1v1 format.

As we fast forward to today, the most popular format in Magic is now a Multiplayer game, thanks to the overwhelming popularity of EDH… or as we now call it: Commander. It’s that very format that gave birth to the most challenging, skill-refining format that we love and hold dear: cPDH or competitive pauper commander.

Now, don’t get me wrong: 1v1 formats are still very popular. The Magic: The Gathering Pro Tour is still alive and well… However, with all of these format shifts, we see a concurrent need to shift our perspective(s) in Magic Game Theory – a shift in concept from facing a single opponent, now to facing a full Pod of multiple opponents.

Today, we begin to look deeper into the Multiplayer Game Theory of our unique and beloved Competitive Pauper Commander format.

Let’s set the Stage:

Thanks to the [cPDH.guide] metadata, we finally learn what the online meta is telling us about the format. For example: we know that tournament games are held within a 90 minute round, and that within that timeframe, we can see that the median game length (in turns) is around 9 turns*. (cPDH.guide)

Comparing the data to actually observing those games via live stream and on YouTube recordings, it becomes more apparent that cPDH games follow a pattern of play. This pattern applies to each player, regardless of strategy or tactics used… these games happen in phases or… in stages of the game.

This concept of Stage Theory seems to have been hiding in plain sight; with streamers, podcasters and players alike all using similar language to describe game stages. It really isn’t a new or revolutionary concept. But it seems that a cohesive game theory hasn’t defined these frequently used terms, such as: The Early Game, The Mid-Game, The Late Game.

…Truly, when does the “Early Game” end and when does the “Mid Game”… begin?
…How does the progression of these game stages affect the decisions made by each player at the table?

Together, we will begin our journey to answer these questions as we dive into the first of [cPDH.guide]’s comprehensive article series of multiplayer game theory: Stages of the Game. With this series, we hope to better equip you as a cPDH player to hopefully improve your abilities in deckbuilding, piloting and even serve as a general reference guide so that you may be the best cPDH magic player you can be!

Let’s begin with definitions:

In cPDH, “Stage Theory” as I’ll call it: games develop in stages, defined in turns or turn count:

“The Early Game”  →  Turns 0-3

“The Mid-Game”  →  Turns 4-6

“The Late Game”  →  Turns 7+


We use these stages like ‘stakes in the ground’ to measure the progression of our game plan and that of our opponents. 

For example, a player might ask themselves:
…Where should (my/my opponent’s) board state be…now that we’ve entered the Mid-Game?
…What does (my/my opponent’s) deck want to accomplish in the Mid-Game in order to progress to (my/their) End-Game plan?
…How does (my/my opponent’s) approach change knowing that another player’s board is ahead of the rest of us in Turn 5?
…Given my available resources… How does this affect my next move? (et cetera). 

One could argue that there’s nearly an infinite number of variables and questions like these to each game, all of which require a frame of reference to help answer. Stage Theory offers that very frame. 

Eventually, with the metrics we have at cPDH.guide, we can begin to answer some of the meta-based questions to assist players while brewing and, possibly while playing the game as well.

For example:

From the metadata, we know that:

• Wins and losses are rarely resolved in the Early Game. 
• Most decks win in the Late Game. 
• Though rare, the color pairing to win in the Mid Game most consistently is Simic.

From the metadata, we can extrapolate that:

• In order to increase their odds of winning, a significant goal of any deck is that it must have the capability to survive into the Late Game.
• The most successful Archetypes are not the most popular to play. 
• The most successful Archetypes to date are 1. Control, 2. Combo. 
• The most successful color pairings to date have been 1. Izzet, and 2. Simic.

Ultimately, our goal at [cPDH.guide] is to empower players to make a more competitive and more enjoyable experience. It is our hope that this article series on Stage Theory will help players to better understand one’s individual advancement in the game is invaluable when making decisions both in-game and while crafting their newest brew.

Stay tuned for more to come as we dive deeper into the first, and arguably most critical stage of any cPDH game… The Early Game.
Until then – stay classy, my friends.

-BeachBodGod69

By BeachBodGod69

We hear it all the time: whenever someone starts pitching a new deck design, often, the listener starts off by asking the question: “how does the deck win?”  Such a simple question, it seems trivial to not have an immediate answer, right? I mean, after all, the purpose of playing the game is to win the game… shouldn’t that be the focus of the deck?

Perhaps that’s all there is to it; simply putting key components together faster than my opponents could lead me to victory.

The question I’d like to present today: Is this the best way to approach building a competitive deck, or is there more to this than meets the eye?

Let’s take a deeper dive and find out what our Champions of the format have done to achieve their success.

As far as Champions go, at the time of this article, there’s a deck we simply can’t ignore. We see it in cPDH.guide’s Power Rankings and Top 4 Wins, we know her by name:  Let’s begin with the most decorated deck in the format; our crowned cPDH GOAT: Gretchen Titchwillow.

At the time of this article: Gretchen Titchwillow boasts 8 Top-4 finishes with multiple pilots..

On the surface, Gretchen in the command zone provides the player access to an outlet before the game begins. This gives the pilot access to its key component immediately, allowing this deck to be stacked with Simic’s abundant draw-and-ramp package, its no wonder that a deck like Gretchen could simply outpace her opponents to victory, right?

Bobby (bfine), Gretchen’s most successful pilot to date, says otherwise; that the deck is successful due to its consistency and resiliency while playing a slower, “Draw-GO” kind of game. 

When asked,

Why do you think that Gretchen has seen so much success in the format?

Bobby responded with:

“Gretchen as a whole is hard to attack, resilient and is redundant. We have so many untappers and combo lines, I just win out of nowhere due to sheer redundancy. It has tons of interaction, it lets me sit back and just win out of nowhere, even if Gretchen is shut down. Plus we have so much velocity and control pieces, it’s really tough to beat unless all three opponents take it out at once.”  –Bobby “bfine”, Discord (12:42 pm CST 12/7/24)

There’s a lot to what Bobby mentioned here; a great deal of Gretchen’s success came not from its speed or focus to a few key components, but a redundancy of them throughout the deck’s build. He even expresses elements of patience when piloting rather than seeking a speedy win, as the deck ‘let’s him sit back and just win out of nowhere…’ …What I find more intriguing, he didn’t mention seeking a win at all; he mentioned redundancy and resilience. 

Redundancy gives consistent results when decks are shuffled and cards are drawn in a game. 

Let’s take a different example: A rising star of the format, winner of Sanctuary IV and most recently, Sanctuary VII: Hollow Marauder.

In his YouTube interview with Clay, pilot PapaPauper (the format’s 2nd highest ranked overall pilot), offers a jubilant exposé of how his deck flips “seeking the win” deck building premise on its head: 

“This is an entirely fair beatdown deck… (and) when nobody has any cards, (with) their creatures have been eroded by edicts and sweepers, (winning the game) is pretty trivial.” -PapaPauper, Sanctuary Series VII Champion Interview (14:02)

Now we have a deck that focuses on everything but the win, taking the crown from all other players with a Champion Pilot stating how trivial the focus on how one wins the game might be… and that focusing on the process versus the outcome is his key to victory.

I want to thank the pilots and the community at large for their perspectives. Overall, there’s more than way to play this fantastic game which we all love. 

In their own words, our champions stated that their success came from the process towards the win rather than the win condition itself. And that redundancy and resilience of the deck’s components are the factors for which champions build upon.

So, if you’re stuck somewhere in that new deck brew and aren’t sure what to do next, take a word from our Champions: look at the process versus the outcome, and confirm how redundant and resilient the deck is… so that you can achieve those consistent results we all crave.

BeachBodGod69 is an avid cPDH meta enjoyer and a true believer in the power of Mystic Enforcer. If you want to discuss his thoughts in more detail, be sure to ping him in server on the cPDH.guide Discord.

Be sure to watch this article’s companion video where we discuss peripheral concepts related to the article.

By Clay and Puzzlebox

Playing a competitive variant of a casual, multiplayer game doesn’t fully eliminate the common social pitfalls of said game. In fact, it’s likely those social faux pas have a greater impact on the result of the game, due to the opportunities competitively built decks provide. Small communities such as ours are not immune to hearing terms such as “kingmaking” and “bullying” levied against other players. In some instances, those terms are justifiably used. Other times, those terms are thrown about incorrectly – and are more reflective of that player’s disdain with their own performance or lack of true understanding of the game state that led to their loss.

While conducting research on the subject, we discovered an early 2023 piece written by Nicolas Hammond, the former owner of Monarch organization, titled, “The Kingmaking Nuance: Social Complications in Tournament Multiplayer Magic.”(1) In this article, he lays out examples of certain negative social elements usually associated with high level, competitive play, e.g., kingmaking, spite plays, collusion, and mana bullying. Though it includes more topics than what was initially intended for this article, it still presented an opportunity to broaden the scope beyond the kingmaking aspect of social play. The only addendum to those topics previously listed is that the subject of Mana Bullying will be expanded to cover both Mana and Priority Bullying instead.

Because of the breadth of discussion encompassed herein, this article will be broken down into Parts 1 & 2.

PART 1 – Kingmaking & Spite Plays

Kingmaking

“In game theory, a kingmaker scenario in a game of three or more players is an endgame situation where a player who is unable to win has the capacity to determine which player among others will win. This player is referred to as the kingmaker or spoiler. No longer playing for themselves, they may make game decisions to favor a player who played more favorably (to them) earlier in the game. Except in games where interpersonal politics, by design, play a decisive role, this is undesirable.”(2) Yes, that blurb is from a Wikipedia page, but we try to use real definitions of terms where possible to eliminate confusion. Simply put, when one player makes a decision (or a series of decisions) that changes the outcome of who wins the game without winning the game themselves, that is Kingmaking.

This should not be confused with the incidental advantages afforded to players by virtue of natural game actions. For example, if Player 1 goes to Combat and attacks Player 2, Players 3 and 4 gain an incidental advantage by not being attacked, which preserves their life total (in matches where that metric matters). There are a multitude of things that complicate this basic math and it’s directly related to the composition of the pod. Insert the Rock, Paper, Scissors archetype analogy here… (3)

At its core, the four archetypes of Magic, i.e., Combo, Aggro, Control, and Midrange, are juxtaposed in a fashion such that one archetype is meant to prey on one or more of the other listed archetypes, invariably creating this perpetual game of Rock, Paper, Scissors. In an effort of full disclosure, we must admit that this analogy wasn’t created with multiplayer Magic in mind – rather, it was meant more to assist players in tempering their expectations for any given 1v1 metagame. But alas, powerful tropes are indeed powerful, and these “explanations” of purported archetype strengths and weaknesses pervade to this day – with a high degree of truth left to them.

Moving back to our above provided example, if Player 1 is an Aggro deck and Player 2 is a Combo deck, does it matter what archetypes Players 3 and 4 are playing? If Players 3 and 4 are both playing Aggro decks as well, does that change the calculus on who should be attacking who? What about other pod configurations? We bring this subject of pod composition into the Kingmaking discussion because we as a small format have had at least two separate instances of the development of “conventional wisdom” that has dominated the competitive landscape: that of the “3v1” and “Aggro’s Job is To Attack Combo” tropes.

While completely inadvertent, it is highly likely that under the guise of either of these two tropes, “a series of decisions were made… that changed the outcome of who wins the game” (as stated above) without that player winning the game themselves. Ultimately, this example is related to high-level decision making and not intentionally “throwing a game,” but we wanted to illustrate how complicated an issue Kingmaking truly is. With that, and to close out this section, let’s consider a scenario that is both unambiguous and easily expected in today’s competitive games.

In this example, Player 1 is playing a Midrange list, Players 2 and 3 are both playing Combo, and Player 4 is playing Aggro. We are midgame and Players 1, 2, and 3 all used their resources to stop Player 4 from winning the game on their respective turns. Even though Player 4 has been stopped for the time being, they are still presenting a win on their next turn. So, in succession, Player 1 completes their turn, with open mana, and passes to Player 2. Player 2 completes their turn, with open mana, and passes to Player 3. Player 3 announces that they are “going for it” ahead of Player 4’s known win on their turn. Player 3 presents the combo spell on the stack and passes priority. Players 4 and 1 also pass priority regarding the game winning spell on the stack. Player 2 has both open mana and sufficient interaction, but by stopping Player 3’s combo attempt, Player 4 is guaranteed to win on their turn.

What should Player 2 do in this circumstance?

If Player 2 does nothing, Player 3 wins.
If Player 2 stops Player 3, then Player 4 wins.
Both options put the fate of the game squarely on the shoulders of a single player, e.g., “the Kingmaker.”
The best and only way to combat this scenario is for Player 2 to leverage Player 4.
In the absence of interaction, Player 3 wins and Player 4 loses.
Thus, it is in Player 4’s best interest to accept a deal from Player 2 regarding the use of their interaction.
That deal may look something like this: Player 2 to Player 4 – “If you promise to not attempt to win the game on your turn, I will use my interaction to stop you from losing to Player 3.”
Under the pretense of that deal, Player 3’s win attempt is thwarted, and the game continues with the opportunity for Player 4 to attempt to win the game at a later time – a task that is nigh impossible if the game is over.(4)
Sure, Player 4 could lie, break the deal, and win on their turn anyway, but those decisions start to intrude into the territory of bad sportsmanship and Player 4 would become a social pariah thereafter.

Spite Plays

Casual Commander games are often riddled with instances of Spite Plays. For example: “They won the last two games, so we’re going to gang up on them this game to make sure they don’t win again.” In layperson’s terms, Spite Plays refer to decisions made in game that are influenced by factors outside of the strategic importance relative to that game. In the example above, the pod ganged up on a player because of their previous successes, but Spite Plays can also occur in game, as well – for example, Player 1 killing Player 2’s Commander because “they attacked me last turn.” Sure, there may be some strategic significance to Player 1 removing that Commander, but that wasn’t the emphasis placed on that particular game action.

Repeated Spite Plays are often associated with Kingmaking, as it creates an overall imbalance in resources at the table. Commander may be a natural 3v1 scenario, but every player is faced with that same scenario, meaning there is opportunity to leverage your opponent’s spells and resources to your advantage. Repeated Spite Plays run contrary to this perceived shared equity among your opponents/allies.

There are some tricky spots, but here are a few examples of conditions that are not Spite Plays, even though the person is destined to lose the game (we must put some skin in the game, right?).

Example 1 – Player 4 has a 2/2 Malcolm, Keen-Eyed Navigator and a 1/3 Reckless Fireweaver, and is at 3 life. On their turn, Player 2 goes to combat and swings five 1/1 Artifact Soldier tokens at Player 4. Should Player 4 block? Yes, Player 4 should block for two reasons… The first is because Players 1 and 3 may want to keep Player 4 in the game and expend one of their resources to help Player 4. The second, and probably most important, is because Player 2 understood that attacking Player 4 came at the risk of losing two of their game pieces in the process.

Example 2 – Player 1 is in their pre-combat main phase and Player 3 suspects that Player 1 will attack them next combat with Gut, True Soul Zealot and two 4/1 Skeletons with Menace, reducing their life total to zero. Prior to the Combat Phase, Player 3 announces that they will expend their removal spell on Player 1’s Commander, should Player 1 decide to attack Player 3. Player 1 moves to Combat and declares all three attackers at Player 3. What should Player 3 do? Similar to the aforementioned example, removing an attacking game piece works in Player 3’s favor because another player may decide to assist Player 3 and keep them alive. Secondly, conditions were laid out in advance of the combat step, prior to the declaration of attackers. Player 3 was simply making good on the promise of removing Player 1’s Commander – a risk they were informed of prior to attacking.

References

1. Hammond, Nicholas, “The Kingmaking Nuance: Social Complications in Tournament Multiplayer Magic,” Commander’s Herald, https://commandersherald.com/the-kingmaking-nuance-social-complications-in-tournament-multiplayer-magic/ (accessed August 21, 2023).
2. Wikipedia contributors, “Kingmaker scenario,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingmaker_scenario&oldid=1162623570 (accessed August 21, 2023).
3. Breezewiki contibutors, “Archetype,” https://breezewiki.com/mtg/wiki/Archetype (accessed August 21, 2023).
4. cEDH TV, “Let player A win or player B win kingmaking in cEDH rant,” YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jjyMx0_6T01162623570 (accessed August 21, 2023).