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