As someone that plays Niv in Cedh, I’ve been “priority bullied” before as many tables expect you to be the table police. I’ve one hundred percent let things resolve when being last in priority because people expect me to use all my interaction to keep the table alive. The amount of times I’ve heard, “if I had known you weren’t going to interact I woulda used X.” Has been staggering. Good on player 4 for sticking to his word, and not getting pushed into a corner. I woulda done the same. There are a lot less people that expect me to police the table now at my locals after they play a few games with me. Mind you, this is when I’m almost 100% sure that someone has something they could do, or have interaction. There’s been a few times where someone will refuse to crack a Ranger captain with a breach on the stack solely because I’m there.
It was player 3 though and Its just not this case though, if it was just mbt as known information and he was like "I won't fire it off pingpong you do something" it would be, but in this case everyone at the table said it would be better to mbt a dockside so if you have a counterspell it would be best to counter the grand abolisher with something other than mbt, ping-pong refused to work with the table by not revealing information he gave the table nothing, revealing the force of will and Swan song, or even lying, a thing you're allowed to do, would have seen the mbt cast, He didn't even need to fire off a single spell activating thrassios is all the table asked for. This is fucking commander people, multiplayer. Greedy play from the both of them.
I too play Niv, among other izzet lists such as Malcolm/kediss or Jhoira, and when I'm on Niv a lot of people expected me to always interat; but I often "take the risk" and interact as little as possible or with just the most relevant and precise piece and thanks to that I've managed to not be "priority bullied" since my playgroup knows I interact in a risky but precice manner and that won't save them. With new people I do encounter that sometimes but it is what it is.
I respect the player saying he will just pass if he gets bullied. I personally don't like it when my opponents pressure me to do something for them just so they can get more out of it. I had someone chain of vapor something on my board and they told me to also sac a land to get rid of a problem. I straight up just didn't copy it and the other problem player won. I think it's important that while yes, this is a more competitive environment, bulling players to such a degree needs to be discouraged early so it does not cause a toxic undertone in this format we all love. If you can solve a problem, do it yourself or talk about it, don't try and goad someone else into it.
One of the reasons why I love this format more than other competative formats is the social aspect. I think priority bullying is greedy af sometimes and expecting to not get punished for it is 100% a gamble. I am 100% on the side of the player who did stick to his words. Their words and verbal agreements will be respected in the future
I think it's one of the worst things about the format. Kinda ruins the ability to win with skill. you're begging your opponent to save you by using politics.
@@floridaman6982 It is a risky move. But as the old saying goes. "The foe of my foe is my friend" You both want to win and the first step towards that is not losing to a third party
i mean the mindbreak trap counters grand abolisher and then p1 casts dockside and still combos off. logically speaking the gy deck having dockside exiled is a bigger hurdle than losing GA. but the table didnt want to work together. my perception is that the other players wanted to force the mindbreak trap to be used in a suboptimal way. if they interact with mardu and then mardu has a response to GA to protect it, mindbreak trap is the best safety net. but rogsi and kinnan didnt want to use removal because they wanted to force temur to do it for them so they could try to win. everyones trying to leverage against each other. maybe temur was being stingy but he was doing so in a pretty logical way
Known information vs unknown information 4th seat was still being competitive. He gave an ultimatum, he follows through. In the future, that ultimatum will be respected.
thats my stance since hearing about priority bullying. I will always decline, and take a loss over letting you bully. thats wild that he thought he could still try and get it to happen by just ignoring the other players words.
Love these breakdowns, always fun to watch, I feel like I learn a lot. IDK if it was an editing error or not but we don’t see the name or deck name of the Kinnan player at 26 minutes. It’s the 4th player from the finals pod so it really confused me that he’s talked about so much but it looks like the part where you mention his name and list got chopped somehow.
Definitely respect the 4th player for sticking to their guns. Obviously they could have been bluffing, but in the context of being bullied like that, they did the right thing IMO.
on priority bully: I can respect that the player with the mindbreak trap attempted to do it however--as soon as the other player said they would let the game go if the MBT player did not counter the abolisher--I think the MBT player had a choice to make and chose to lose it. I don't think that's necessarily a problem just, a player failing on the politics of a four player game which can happen. Really great result for the 1st place winner though lol
I can respect that decision to not stop the Grand Abolisher. Especially if he might have been intending to use his counter magic to combo, he'd know that he would already have lost with his opponent still holding interaction.
That's a pretty one sided way of discussing what happened in the final pod. There was a dockside in hand with a cloudstone curio on field, so the table needed two pieces of creature interaction to stop the win attempt. Since mindbreak trap exiles, hitting the grand abolisher instead of the dockside only buys them time until a reanimate brings dockside back, so the highest value way to stop that specific win attempt, ignoring the rest of the table, is for the non-exile counters to hit the abolisher while mindbreak hits dockside. The other players aren't playing white, so on board creature interaction is very unlikely. Sure, position 4 said they wouldn't interact and didn't, but they also tapped mana to reset priority and give positions 2 and 3 a chance to interact again. I don't fault the playing of positions 1, 2, or 4 in that spot, but position 3 was a kinnan player with 6 mana open, a force of will, and a swan song in hand (he revealed them after the game). Position 4 (Rogsi) loses by playing a spell there, agreed. So does position 2 (Dargo Thrasios), but the thrasios player holding up a mindbreak trap doesn't hurt the kinnan player. If anything, that's ideal for position 3. The position 2 player wasn't representing a win or even close to a win on their next turn, while Rogsi had access to 6+ mana on untap (and I believe 4 or 5 mana at the time of grand abolisher being on the stack). I don't believe that position 2 or 4 misplayed in that spot at all, but position 3 just let the game end and it confused the hell out of me.
The initial presentation of the game state had me scratching my head, so I looked into it, and your summary matches my thoughts. Based on the available information about known info, hidden info, and how players chose to communicate it seems more like two players chose to make a high stakes gamble of their reputations but the chips were allowed to fall where they did because the unmentioned player actually chose to lose. Is there more info about the actual interaction of all four players at that time? It just seems like a really odd sequence considering it didn’t just take two to tango, it took three to lose.
Yeah the kinnan player need only to tell the table "i can take care of the dockside if you can get rid of the abolisher" and keep their word and then things work out differently.
@@HebrewHercules or even lie about having interaction, because truth is he had basically nothing for dockside. exile > counter think the game would have gone on not that much longer though.
I played against the Etali, he was going very fast, mentioned he was playing without proxies, only his real cards which was cool. Not having mana crypt and getting the commander pretty fast. Managed to tie that game stopping the etali many times. Also played against the Kodama Sakashima in which i think we both lost but was interesting to see. Also played against The Atraxa, the game was rough they had a VERY good start and was basically impossible to stop, having rhystic, smothering tithe and other things by turn 2. I lost very hard that game. Not very sure if I played against Waffle, hard to remember. But damn, now I noticed that I played with a bunch of top 16. Great video!
Yeah the problem is that player 4 had multiple responses to grand abolisher and player 3 only had 1 piece of interaction. So its either give it to the grand abolisher or player 4 who had plenty of interaction as well. If you listen to the actual game dialogue, player 4 just refused to give any info.
I agree with Ian; the guy priority-bullying was SUPER GREEDY trying to force opponents to counter another opponent's threat when they already had an answer themselves. At this level of play it's a legitimate move but in my experience often a stupid one. I have to wonder, how often does that player actually succeed in doing that? And of those successes, how many times was it that having his own interaction was public information? Well, hopefully the player learned to play more conservatively in the future if his goal is to get first place
But here is the other half of that equation. At the finals level you have to assume your opponents have the win at all points in time. If MBT is the only interaction you have in hand and you use it for the abolisher and you allow kinnan to leave that mana up for activations…then once you use your last bit of interaction in MBT kinnan still uses that mana through Thrasios activations but in this scenario its to get themselves more interaction / protection to now definitely go off on their turn. This time knowing the table has no interaction left to stop them. It’s not greed it’s heads up playing. Pong ultimately made the poorest decision in being principled as opposed to being competitive.
@@Womping-Willow if the guy used his MBT and Kinnan tried going off or w/e, then player 4 would still be able to stop player 1 and the game would continue (because, unless something different was later revealed, to my understanding p4 HAD interaction but chose not to use it). So MBT player's choices sound like "use MBT and maybe lose" or "priority bully and much more likely lose". Especially when you can't just assume people have interaction. He took such an obnoxious gamble and earned that loss through bad decision making
@@Womping-Willow and to be clear, I play cedh and the only time I've seen priority bully work is when the bully successfully bluffs the table into believing he or she has no interaction in their hand. Which it that point it's just bluffing and not bullying.
@@Knightfall8 but with Thrasios open mana for two activations IS interaction. Not an assumption 4 cards in any direction in a Thrasios deck should produce some form of interaction. I get where you’re coming from I think that calling this bullying at a finals level seems a bit narrow of a view. Ethically grey yes, but we play a zero sum game and ultimately only one person comes home with the purse. Attitudinal barriers have no weight in that kind of calculus.
@@Womping-Willow The concern, from my view, isn't that the Kinnan player could go off with Thrasios if MBT was used. It's that MBT is known information vs unknown information, and by holding onto it you do two things: present as if you are planning to protect your own win and mana bully your next opponents into using interaction. The biggest flaw on Waffle's part is that Ping literally said, "I can deal with Dockside" and instead of noticing that he is willing to stop a win and just progress the game, Waffle decided to double down and gaslight the table to believe that MBT needed to be saved for Dockside when that within itself is counterintuitive logic.
Hulk player here. Worked on the deck with some others. We agreed that we wanted the primary focus of the deck to be getting a Hulk activation as quickly and consistently as possible. We didn’t want to be putting our commander in play unless we needed to grind through the mid game. This took us away from Vivien as we had our 3 less often. We also didn’t want to rely as heavily on mana dorks so we cut Natural Order.
Priority bullying is a strategy. Just dont be mad when it doesnt work out. I seriously would have considered not playing interaction to prove a point. I dont deal with terrorists.
@@ComedIanMTG I’m just a high power casual and I know about cedh but I don’t know the nitty gritty. From what I can gather you seem to be the tier 1 content creator about the format. I’m hoping to learn enough over the next month to try and make a run as the people’s champ in Baltimore. Then it might be cool content for you if I gave you the deck list, and you show people how to convert a deck, and if the deck is your style you take it to a win or top for and finish the dream for me haha.
The other blue player was apparently holding a Force of Will. So the combo could have been stopped. The blue players needed to reveal their interaction to each other because the win was threatened with the Abolisher resolving. I think if the Force of Will was revealed, the two could have come to an agreement to stop the win.
After watching and listening to the player interaction in that final round. I'm of the opinion that p3 broke player etiquette. Even without knowing he had interaction in hand, all P2 wanted him to do was activate his Thrasios to try and dig for something. P2 was trying to hold his MBT for the dockside that P1 just had bounced, because P1 also had a cloudstone on board. P3 didn't play to his outs and just spite held his interaction and refused to activate his Thrasios. P2 played the situation correctly imo as all he was asking was if P3 had anything to help stop him.
First of all, thank you for these reviews on decks from cEDH! Your videos got me into cEDH and I’m going into my first tournament this sunday! A question: these decks that you’re reviewing, do the players play 1 vs 1 or 4 people? Bc I’m looking for decks that are using the cEDH banning list but is 1 vs 1!
Can't wait to see the Tayam Vid. Ever since I heard you talking about him in a previous vid I have been trying to learn/see how it works. Checking out that Etali build as I type.
You forgot to mention/show the Kinnan player: PingMeisterPong. I think he deserves the shoutout. A consistently good player. Also the Astral Dragon inclusion is kind of unique.
I would have but his deckname was an immature response to me telling him he was being rude, not really someone I'm going to go out of my way to talk about
@@ComedIanMTG You're supposedly putting out informational content, your personal feelings shouldn't get in the way of reporting the facts. You should have done the bare minimum to list the deck type and placement and then you could move on without elaboration. EDIT: I made a mistake. I thought there were two Kinnan decks and that Ian had skipped Ping's. Still passive-aggressive, but he did in fact fulfill the bare minimum needed for informational integrity.
As far as that finals match goes I think both players were at fault. Yes, the player with the mindbreak trap should’ve used it. But it was obvious the Rog/Silas player had interaction, but wanted to sandbag it for their combo turn. If the table had communicated properly and countered both the grand abolisher and what followed the game could’ve ended differently. The lesson of that match being play to your outs always.
Just a note both the Rog/Si and Kinnan player were holding interaction. Kinnan was the one with last priority to pass after the priority reset. Rog/Si had a daze in hand and had floated 1 blue but was keeping it for their combo turn expecting one of the 2 other players who argued about their counters (Kinnan who passed priority did a full hypothetical walkthrough of him countering GA and let slip he had an answer in the process. The Jeska player mentions this later in the combo) to counter it.
As a Saffi player i can say: The combos are easy to interact with (without abolisher etc.) But the biggest problem is the lack of good sac outlets. Altar of dementia(3 carc combo) is great, but other sac outlets are at leats 4 card combos.
Ehh not so much. The only one you need extra pieces for is Phyrexian Altar. All the rest of em only really have to assemble 2 cards from your deck alongside your commander. It's only ever really 3 when Saffi is inaccessible and Boonweaver is unusable. At that point, yes you need a third card to start looping. Living and dying by 5 sac Outlets is a major feel bad though I can't deny.
I don't understand why it's considered priority "bullying". Both players made an identical choice to throw the game. Seems like its just a regular bluff/call strategy
It more so that the player priority bullying has known game state information that he has an answer to the current stack. The table knows he has a free counterspell, it was revealed, he's refusing to stop a win to try to get another player to spend their interaction. There's a difference in plays between "I might not win" and "I definitely lose", that player *knows* if this spell resolves they lose the game. Choosing not to counter is throwing the game. If nobody knows what anybody has in their hand, holding your interaction back and hoping the next seat answers it is a legitimate gamble to try and protect your own win attempt. When everyone knows you have Mindbreak Trap, and you refuse to stop a win with it, you have handed your opponent that win, especially since by not losing on the spot, you might get a chance at a win on your following turn anyway
@@some_hippies So the issue I have with that logic is that both players have given each other the same ultimatum - essentially "use your counter or the game ends". The priority order isn't really relevant since both players know that if the spell resolves, they lose the game. And both players made the same choice to throw it.
@@NicolasandDadThe guy just followed his word. He was being forced into an ultimatum that the guy with the MBT would literally do nothing even with the information that "P3 could do something about dockside"
I don’t know the full situation but I’m curious if it mattered… if P1 was going for grand abolisher knowing there was a mindbreak trap p2, it seems likely he was doing so anticipating the abolisher getting countered and still having backup for the win. Either way as is I think p4 was totally fair with warning and following through.
In the full gameplay video of the final. It comes up before the GA is cast (as a tutor is happening) that a silence effect would be the worst thing he could tutor for and they let that resolve. I'm not sure if the GA was in hand but p1 definitely knew then it was the right play. Countering it with the MBT is a bad idea and gets discussed. Dockside was bounced with a cloudstone curio in play. P3 did a hypothetical walkthrough of if they did have a counter (and also mentioned by accident later on in discussion they had an answer to GA). P2 passed knowing there was some interaction in hand that could've dealt with GA and let MBT completely stop the combo attempt without even needing to be cast (which also saves it for the Rog Si player with 6 mana available coming up). P2 probably should of cast MBt but let's it go round once to see if P3 will search (note not asking to reset priority but just a search if they don't have anything) P3 refuses then passes. P4 floats a blue to reset priority also with a daze in hand. p3 rules checks to make sure he'll be last in priority. P2 passes to force a play for p3s known info(be it a counter or ottawara/boseju). P3 passes with the only answer he has being a counter and loses. Honestly the best play of the whole game was p1 getting that silence effect out. Had it been a silence spell p3 uses their swansong no questions asked but because it's GA p3 would be down 2 cards to counter with force. Props to P1 for reading the table well
33:00 The player with Mindbreak Trap said that he wanted the 4th player to counter the Grand Abolisher because he suspected he had counters, and he wanted to use the Mindbreak Trap more efficiently (To exile Dockside). He also said that he asked the 4th player if he had counters, and he did not want to reveal information. He wanted that information because he didn’t want to use his Mindbreak Trap if it was the only interaction available since it would not be enough anyways, which I think is fair. On that occasion, I think the 4th did a spite play that made them all lose (since he had interaction, but wanted to save it because the 3rd was “priority bullying” him).
I think this is actually not what was happening. The mbt player wanted anyone else to use interaction so that he could win on his turn protected. What he did not want was to use his counterspell at all on this cycle. What pong said is correct in that player with dockside would never cast it into known mbt so if ga is countered with a non mbt spell it never gets cast and the mbt player instead moves to their turn to try win knowing interaction is all spent.
@freedomwaffle_ mbt doesn't necessarily protect his win. Using any other piece of interaction / thrasios activation does though. We know player 1 has nothing are led to belive player 2 doesn't either. Thus if player 3 is forced to use his player 2 is open to win. If player 2 uses mbt then he can't win into player 3 unknown unless very lucky and also might not be able to stop player 4/1 unless he just draw goes.
@@herschelruskin432 I understand that logic, but it was revealed later that p3 had Force of Will, Swan Song, and Resculpt in hand. Those can all be used better defensively than MBT can. Furthermore, in a competitive setting everyone is playing to win, not trying to even the playing field between counterspells. Regardless, I was the player with Mindbreak Trap and I didn't have a win on my turn, though in p3's defense he didn't know that.
@freedomwaffle_ that's kind of my point though p4 can use his counters whenever right thus p3 suspecting he has them wants him to have to pitch cast force or tap out for thrasios. P3 must thus belief his only window to win is if p4 spends out interaction on p2. P4 doesn't want to use his interaction though a because it's hidden exactly what it is and thus could be bluffing but also knows if he interacts first p2 stops trying to win then p3 is free to do so.
It struck me as a comp to combat damage. When a player is at low life, you press an attack to force them into blocks. Player two pressed the issue and forced player 3 and 4 into a hard choice. If P3 casts trap, they're out of resources and there are followup plays that continue to press player 4's resources. Here the politics was also a resource. Can't promise not to win for a turn to get a favor, so P3 had no real leverage. P4 had to stand up to bullying and did so, and knew that giving in would probably give P3 the win anyways, so it was lose lose and no advantage to cater to P3's frustration. Tough event, and good on P2 for leveraging the resources.
Defs "die on my feet rather than live on my knees" energy. What a legend. Also interesting how mardu decks in cedh haven't got much stax representation. Naus and reanimate/midrange. I feel like there is a kaalia stax list waiting to be born.
fair play to that player. because I've seen some stinkers in cEDH before on camera, where priority bullying goes on. I'm ggoing to call out the person that did it, because while it is allowed, I massively look down on it. So the former Lab maniacs had a game, where one was going off with his lab man combo. Siggi, knowing Dan has a counterspell in his hand, also had the lab man finish next turn, and tapped a land to force priority to go around the table again. what he wanted to do was to get Dan to tap his mana so Dan couldn't counter his lab man win when he went off right after Cameron, so he said "Dan, I'm going to need you to tap that island there, so priority can get back to me". Dan then did it and Siggi countered the spell and then the turn passed to ziggi, he untaps, pulls the combo and wins. the right thing for Dan to do was to say "f**k it, I pass" and then Cameron won the game. I don't care if I call people out that do this, if you do this at a LGS or anywhere, I don't see why people would want to play with you. So fair play to this player here.
At the end of the day your playing agaist 3 people all sitting on instant win conditions. If I counter one the other wins…. Seems like the game devolves into “my interaction is only there to protect my win”. Why would I help one of my opponents “not lose”.
To explain it simply it is players passing their priority to typically the last player in turn order to force then into using interaction in order to not lose.
Need help with ad naus decks… how many cards to they need to draw?? My thought is with ad naus/bolas citadel meta is ankh of mishra a legit card to play?? If I T1 it… opponents can take 10 by fetching in 2 dual lands… more for shocks… 13 if they hit a mana crypt trigger…
Will mono-color decks ever stand as much of a chance as multi-colored decks? Idk how they could give them some love without helping multi-color as well.
I had to take a break from magic for work but I’m catching up on stuff; good content. Still here playing Shorikai Humility making everyone weep new players and old. Why does no one really play much enchantment removal now? Not that I’m complaining. Seems like bad deck building from my opponents 😂
Honestly I'm with waffle on this one. I do really hat priority bullying, but I don't even know that I would call it priority bullying considering that he wanted to trap the dockside to make sure the threat was gone forever rather than the abolisher. Waffle was really good with communication, asking multiple times whether Kokkoi had anything in his hand, but he just refused to answer. Ping also had a Thrasios activation that he refused to use for some reason. It seemed like everyone except waffle just refused to communicate at all. Considering Waffle was the only one making any attempt at clear communication and had very solid reasoning it's hard to blame him here. I wouldn't have felt good leaving this game as anyone other than Gary.
Ping also previously says " I can handle the dockside" to me freedom is justified in passing and assuming he has a creature counter force or will pact whatever, unless ping shows him and proves he dosent, like if you have some super narrow answer to dockside like blueblast just show it . Of course it turned out he did have the force lmao.
@@garretgeorge9721hat do you mean by that? he had an answer for GA in hand, lol. And Robin confirmed that he „can handle the dockside“, because you will never be stupid enough to cast Dockside into the MBT, which you knew about.
@@089Memo90 Hey memo. Yea this is not as straight for me as some other people are making it out to be. Obviously if GA gets hit by something other than the MBT I would not knowingly cast dockside into MBT you have that right. The problem comes down to freedom waffle having nothing for his turn to threaten a win, and using his only interaction. Where ping has not revealed anything aside from "potentially being able to have an answer" i say potentially because I don't know ping and haven't played with him before but this is CEDH people bluff and lie about what they have. Nothing was revealed from ping's POV. idk its complicated IMO and hard to discuss over a youtube comment section and would be better off discussed via voice chatting. Don't get me wrong i'm pretty upset and annoyed how the finals ended. Not a way I enjoy "winning" especially with having an awesome opening start and solid development to get to top 4 in my first online tournament. But it is what it is. The fact this happened completely takes away from the achievement for me.
@@WhoTFareyou2 was there proof he had the force because to me if it wasnt shown on stream or picture in hand during game its just naysay. i'm not trying to call people out or call people liars but bluffing is a major factor in the game.
If the trap was known information and the trap owner ignored the warning than he made his choice to lose. payment/placement for the losers of the pod should be based in priority order too imo. 1st prio after winner gets second and so on.😊
@@Dracomandriuthus Yeah I see a lot of cedh tournaments have like a 1st place and then also individual prizes for 2nd, 3rd and 4th respectively and I'm always like but how do you figure that out smoothly?
one activation of faerie mastermind with con sphinx only draws 7 not the 3 extra. Idk why so many people think 1 activation triggers his first ability, it's only when your opponent draws a 2nd card
Another Grrr-eat Bear-akdown, Ian!🐻 I already said it in the heated Twitter discussion, - and also after listening to the RAW footage from the finals - I have a ton of respect for P4 keeping his word! Maybe the community should think about some kind of Competitive Honor Code for tournaments?
Honestly i think the priority bullying thing was kinda hilarious and props to pmp for doing it. Fw shouldve known that the stales for him were super low - answer the abolisher and have fw go off next turn with protection or let gary go off and win. I'd have done the same, let the guy whos bullying you get punished. Hilarious to see the wild grin on the Etali deck, its great to see new brews and content creators actually into them too!
This is the reason why you can't place value in these results or any sort of tier list that relates to commander. It comes down to the players making mistakes or king making. You said player 2 priority bullied player 4? So that means player 3 got screwed over and the winner won off the back of stubbornness.
The reason of this being the thumbnail and description was that the incident was noteworthy, rare and atypical. The clear understanding for this video and commentary is that this is the exception to the rule of how things normally go
@@ComedIanMTG I disagree, I've been to several tournaments now, not as many as you mind you. But in each tournament there has always been a player who should not have been sitting at the pod. They are either not playing a competitive deck, not taking it seriously or even worse in the pod with a mate. You cannot have a definitive top 4 because along the way the actual top players have gotten knocked out due to some clown king making or helping his mate out.
There’s a lot more context that Ian is leaving out (probably because he wasn’t there) and there’s a much larger conversation to be had around what happened. It wasn’t an abuse of the priority system, and if this needed more discussion then Ian should talk with the players involved.
The word abuse was never used, priority bullying is a shorthand. It's a valid strategy, the part I'm calling greedy was after being told multiple times that they wouldn't interact they still chose to go for it
@@ComedIanMTG I never said you used the word abuse. What I said was that there is a ton more context to this situation that was left out of this video. Furthermore, the whole sequence of events can be broken down further than this, and faults can be applied to both sides of the situation, but that didn’t happen in this video. What this situation could create is a form of gatekeeping, where people who are not internet names in the community start to second guess participating in events, simply because they don’t want to get piled on online by people they generally respect or even admire.
I just want to point out in good faith I'm in discord with waffle the other guy had 2 counters in hand as well so they could of countered it as well but chose not to
My question is How did this happen? Why did player 1 go for the win if he knew there was two pieces of interaction? From player 2 and player 4. Just listened to moderately anonymous UA-cam video and came here. We’re all talking about politics. But how did this happen In the first place? Why go for the win knowing there is interaction Did he have two pieces of protection!? Alright I’m watching your video now comedian
player 1 was rog si and did not go for the win. I was player 2 and the interaction was unknown at the time of tutoring for grand abolisher. The thrasios was activated in response where a MBT was revealed. It is easy to make assumptions off snippets of gameplay but if you weren't there for the entire uncommentated match I would try and reserve judgement. The entire table mulled very low except for me and I punished them by casting an early jeska to pop dorks and rograkh. I felt comfortable casting GA into mindbreak trap because I had another silence in hand and a defense grid in the bin able to be welded in.
@@garretgeorge9721the intention of my post was not to accuse or be judgmental though it comes off that way so I apologize Moderately anonymous did a horrible job explaining the situation So I apologize for my post. This context is EXACTLY what I needed. I didn’t even know it was over a grand abolisher! Thank you much and congrats on the win. WGD very much alive!!
I really respect that player 4 for sticking to his word and letting the Abolisher resolve. I think that angle-shooting, toxic attitudes, etc. are a huge problem with competitive Magic that drives people away from it. If that sh*t happens to you at your first tournament, there's a good chance you never come back. I think we can be competitive and still good people.
the "drama" kinda boils down to something like two people unwilling to give way on the highway and ended up in a car crash except this is just cedh and you got a "next chance" to play or be better at communicating or playing but in the car crash analogy those people could have been dead or very injured so the real thing that matters is the outcome who cares if it is "your right of way" when the stakes are much higher than just a game of chicken? but anyways teammarduforever~
Hello. My name shows up under your coaching tier, however, I’ve never had nor paid for that so could you please remove my name from that. It’s been several videos now. Thanks.
Waffle tried to maximise his chance of winning by passing priority since he was confident the other player had interaction (it was confirmed later he was right, but had he been wrong i don't think it changes anything). The other player passing looks to me like kingmaking: "I'm not winning so neither will you"
No he had the chance to interact and refused unless they played their hands first or straight up tapping out that’s the definition of mana bullying and he deserved the loss
@__ I don't really get this argument, then wasn't he information bullying the thrasios player? Personally I would be fine with both (in CEDH) but why do you believe information bullying is ok but priority bullying isn't? They both try to keep their resources, in this case free interaction, to have a better shot at winning later. It seems to me Ping was salty Waffle had a read on him and turned what would have been a lower chance of winning for Ping (him countering with his Force of will) into a guaranteed loss for everyone aka kingsmaking
@@shwars576 he theasisosd before the ga was on the stack on the last turn cycle so he would’ve thrassioed anyway, had he thrassioed in response to ga I could see your point
so player 3 had thrasios activation, player 4 said he has something, it is no fault of player 2 to keep trap and pass priority knowing these 2 people can easily pass priority back to him AND SAID SO. I would even say player 3 and 4 did a win- trade and lost on purpose beacuse thier way to bully player 2 didn't work and they got mad, it should not exist in cedh tournament setting and OFFICIALY refusing to play the game/win the game/ continue playing the game, that player should be banned from any further tournament play
First of all, thank you for these reviews on decks from cEDH! Your videos got me into cEDH and I’m going into my first tournament this sunday! A question: these decks that you’re reviewing, do the players play 1 vs 1 or 4 people? Bc I’m looking for decks that are using the cEDH banning list but is 1 vs 1!
I don’t think I’ll ever get tired of seeing Tayam top. I can’t wait for the Tayam deck tech!
As someone that plays Niv in Cedh, I’ve been “priority bullied” before as many tables expect you to be the table police. I’ve one hundred percent let things resolve when being last in priority because people expect me to use all my interaction to keep the table alive. The amount of times I’ve heard, “if I had known you weren’t going to interact I woulda used X.” Has been staggering. Good on player 4 for sticking to his word, and not getting pushed into a corner. I woulda done the same.
There are a lot less people that expect me to police the table now at my locals after they play a few games with me.
Mind you, this is when I’m almost 100% sure that someone has something they could do, or have interaction. There’s been a few times where someone will refuse to crack a Ranger captain with a breach on the stack solely because I’m there.
It was player 3 though and Its just not this case though, if it was just mbt as known information and he was like "I won't fire it off pingpong you do something" it would be, but in this case everyone at the table said it would be better to mbt a dockside so if you have a counterspell it would be best to counter the grand abolisher with something other than mbt, ping-pong refused to work with the table by not revealing information he gave the table nothing, revealing the force of will and Swan song, or even lying, a thing you're allowed to do, would have seen the mbt cast, He didn't even need to fire off a single spell activating thrassios is all the table asked for. This is fucking commander people, multiplayer. Greedy play from the both of them.
I too play Niv, among other izzet lists such as Malcolm/kediss or Jhoira, and when I'm on Niv a lot of people expected me to always interat; but I often "take the risk" and interact as little as possible or with just the most relevant and precise piece and thanks to that I've managed to not be "priority bullied" since my playgroup knows I interact in a risky but precice manner and that won't save them.
With new people I do encounter that sometimes but it is what it is.
So you play for second.
I respect the player saying he will just pass if he gets bullied. I personally don't like it when my opponents pressure me to do something for them just so they can get more out of it. I had someone chain of vapor something on my board and they told me to also sac a land to get rid of a problem. I straight up just didn't copy it and the other problem player won. I think it's important that while yes, this is a more competitive environment, bulling players to such a degree needs to be discouraged early so it does not cause a toxic undertone in this format we all love. If you can solve a problem, do it yourself or talk about it, don't try and goad someone else into it.
One of the reasons why I love this format more than other competative formats is the social aspect. I think priority bullying is greedy af sometimes and expecting to not get punished for it is 100% a gamble. I am 100% on the side of the player who did stick to his words. Their words and verbal agreements will be respected in the future
Is priority bullying seen as bm at tourneys? Or is the vibe more that its an option with potential downside?
I think it's one of the worst things about the format. Kinda ruins the ability to win with skill. you're begging your opponent to save you by using politics.
@@kennellfrederick4367 Then why are you playing cEDH in the first place. This is the ONE distinct feature about the format
@@omegasybers1110 its a risky bluff, you are assuming your opponents will help you win.
@@floridaman6982 It is a risky move. But as the old saying goes. "The foe of my foe is my friend" You both want to win and the first step towards that is not losing to a third party
i mean the mindbreak trap counters grand abolisher and then p1 casts dockside and still combos off. logically speaking the gy deck having dockside exiled is a bigger hurdle than losing GA. but the table didnt want to work together. my perception is that the other players wanted to force the mindbreak trap to be used in a suboptimal way.
if they interact with mardu and then mardu has a response to GA to protect it, mindbreak trap is the best safety net. but rogsi and kinnan didnt want to use removal because they wanted to force temur to do it for them so they could try to win.
everyones trying to leverage against each other. maybe temur was being stingy but he was doing so in a pretty logical way
Both players had interaction yet neither decided to use it. Competition at its finest!
Known information vs unknown information
4th seat was still being competitive. He gave an ultimatum, he follows through. In the future, that ultimatum will be respected.
@@Dracomandriuthus player with the mindbreak trap knew that 4th player had interaction. It was a known information vs known information situation.
The worst enemy of the blue player is… the other blue player lmao. Like two stubborn mules
I also agree with the player who held their ground. It will help them and the format in the long run. Mad respect.
Big booty commanders Niv-Mizzet and Atraxa being consistent? I love to see it!
Tivit too!
It's got me bricked up 😳😍
thats my stance since hearing about priority bullying. I will always decline, and take a loss over letting you bully. thats wild that he thought he could still try and get it to happen by just ignoring the other players words.
Love these breakdowns, always fun to watch, I feel like I learn a lot.
IDK if it was an editing error or not but we don’t see the name or deck name of the Kinnan player at 26 minutes. It’s the 4th player from the finals pod so it really confused me that he’s talked about so much but it looks like the part where you mention his name and list got chopped somehow.
The name for his deck was a really immature shot at me so I left it out
@@ComedIanMTGAhh okay, understandably awkward. Not sure if I get the shot but I am probably missing context.
I saw the decklist name and it is petty/childish, I get it
Brother said my deck is clean, I'm popping off so hard
Definitely respect the 4th player for sticking to their guns. Obviously they could have been bluffing, but in the context of being bullied like that, they did the right thing IMO.
on priority bully: I can respect that the player with the mindbreak trap attempted to do it however--as soon as the other player said they would let the game go if the MBT player did not counter the abolisher--I think the MBT player had a choice to make and chose to lose it.
I don't think that's necessarily a problem just, a player failing on the politics of a four player game which can happen. Really great result for the 1st place winner though lol
I can respect that decision to not stop the Grand Abolisher. Especially if he might have been intending to use his counter magic to combo, he'd know that he would already have lost with his opponent still holding interaction.
That's a pretty one sided way of discussing what happened in the final pod. There was a dockside in hand with a cloudstone curio on field, so the table needed two pieces of creature interaction to stop the win attempt. Since mindbreak trap exiles, hitting the grand abolisher instead of the dockside only buys them time until a reanimate brings dockside back, so the highest value way to stop that specific win attempt, ignoring the rest of the table, is for the non-exile counters to hit the abolisher while mindbreak hits dockside. The other players aren't playing white, so on board creature interaction is very unlikely. Sure, position 4 said they wouldn't interact and didn't, but they also tapped mana to reset priority and give positions 2 and 3 a chance to interact again.
I don't fault the playing of positions 1, 2, or 4 in that spot, but position 3 was a kinnan player with 6 mana open, a force of will, and a swan song in hand (he revealed them after the game). Position 4 (Rogsi) loses by playing a spell there, agreed. So does position 2 (Dargo Thrasios), but the thrasios player holding up a mindbreak trap doesn't hurt the kinnan player. If anything, that's ideal for position 3. The position 2 player wasn't representing a win or even close to a win on their next turn, while Rogsi had access to 6+ mana on untap (and I believe 4 or 5 mana at the time of grand abolisher being on the stack). I don't believe that position 2 or 4 misplayed in that spot at all, but position 3 just let the game end and it confused the hell out of me.
The initial presentation of the game state had me scratching my head, so I looked into it, and your summary matches my thoughts. Based on the available information about known info, hidden info, and how players chose to communicate it seems more like two players chose to make a high stakes gamble of their reputations but the chips were allowed to fall where they did because the unmentioned player actually chose to lose. Is there more info about the actual interaction of all four players at that time? It just seems like a really odd sequence considering it didn’t just take two to tango, it took three to lose.
Well said
Yeah the kinnan player need only to tell the table "i can take care of the dockside if you can get rid of the abolisher" and keep their word and then things work out differently.
@@HebrewHercules or even lie about having interaction, because truth is he had basically nothing for dockside. exile > counter think the game would have gone on not that much longer though.
@Enemyknight literally anything other than "im not telling you" lol
I played against the Etali, he was going very fast, mentioned he was playing without proxies, only his real cards which was cool. Not having mana crypt and getting the commander pretty fast. Managed to tie that game stopping the etali many times.
Also played against the Kodama Sakashima in which i think we both lost but was interesting to see.
Also played against The Atraxa, the game was rough they had a VERY good start and was basically impossible to stop, having rhystic, smothering tithe and other things by turn 2. I lost very hard that game.
Not very sure if I played against Waffle, hard to remember. But damn, now I noticed that I played with a bunch of top 16.
Great video!
Yeah the problem is that player 4 had multiple responses to grand abolisher and player 3 only had 1 piece of interaction. So its either give it to the grand abolisher or player 4 who had plenty of interaction as well. If you listen to the actual game dialogue, player 4 just refused to give any info.
I agree with Ian; the guy priority-bullying was SUPER GREEDY trying to force opponents to counter another opponent's threat when they already had an answer themselves. At this level of play it's a legitimate move but in my experience often a stupid one. I have to wonder, how often does that player actually succeed in doing that? And of those successes, how many times was it that having his own interaction was public information? Well, hopefully the player learned to play more conservatively in the future if his goal is to get first place
But here is the other half of that equation. At the finals level you have to assume your opponents have the win at all points in time. If MBT is the only interaction you have in hand and you use it for the abolisher and you allow kinnan to leave that mana up for activations…then once you use your last bit of interaction in MBT kinnan still uses that mana through Thrasios activations but in this scenario its to get themselves more interaction / protection to now definitely go off on their turn. This time knowing the table has no interaction left to stop them. It’s not greed it’s heads up playing. Pong ultimately made the poorest decision in being principled as opposed to being competitive.
@@Womping-Willow if the guy used his MBT and Kinnan tried going off or w/e, then player 4 would still be able to stop player 1 and the game would continue (because, unless something different was later revealed, to my understanding p4 HAD interaction but chose not to use it).
So MBT player's choices sound like "use MBT and maybe lose" or "priority bully and much more likely lose". Especially when you can't just assume people have interaction. He took such an obnoxious gamble and earned that loss through bad decision making
@@Womping-Willow and to be clear, I play cedh and the only time I've seen priority bully work is when the bully successfully bluffs the table into believing he or she has no interaction in their hand. Which it that point it's just bluffing and not bullying.
@@Knightfall8 but with Thrasios open mana for two activations IS interaction. Not an assumption 4 cards in any direction in a Thrasios deck should produce some form of interaction. I get where you’re coming from I think that calling this bullying at a finals level seems a bit narrow of a view. Ethically grey yes, but we play a zero sum game and ultimately only one person comes home with the purse. Attitudinal barriers have no weight in that kind of calculus.
@@Womping-Willow The concern, from my view, isn't that the Kinnan player could go off with Thrasios if MBT was used. It's that MBT is known information vs unknown information, and by holding onto it you do two things: present as if you are planning to protect your own win and mana bully your next opponents into using interaction.
The biggest flaw on Waffle's part is that Ping literally said, "I can deal with Dockside" and instead of noticing that he is willing to stop a win and just progress the game, Waffle decided to double down and gaslight the table to believe that MBT needed to be saved for Dockside when that within itself is counterintuitive logic.
Hulk player here. Worked on the deck with some others. We agreed that we wanted the primary focus of the deck to be getting a Hulk activation as quickly and consistently as possible. We didn’t want to be putting our commander in play unless we needed to grind through the mid game. This took us away from Vivien as we had our 3 less often. We also didn’t want to rely as heavily on mana dorks so we cut Natural Order.
Priority bullying is a strategy. Just dont be mad when it doesnt work out. I seriously would have considered not playing interaction to prove a point. I dont deal with terrorists.
I have a feeling thats why mid range tempo is doing so good rn. The smaller actions arent a major threat until its critical mass and everyones losing.
You could make a video on how to play _goblin. I have issues understanding the rules around it.
For the Broodlord line, tutoring Yawgmoth's Will and Sacrifice before Peer nets you even more mana!
If you make a promise you should keep it. People will stop politicking if you get a reputation for saying one thing and doing another
I got one goal... to get noticed by you at an upcoming cedh tournament... and see if I can create a ripple in the cedh pond
This sounds ominous and a little badass 🤣
@@ComedIanMTG I’m just a high power casual and I know about cedh but I don’t know the nitty gritty. From what I can gather you seem to be the tier 1 content creator about the format. I’m hoping to learn enough over the next month to try and make a run as the people’s champ in Baltimore. Then it might be cool content for you if I gave you the deck list, and you show people how to convert a deck, and if the deck is your style you take it to a win or top for and finish the dream for me haha.
The other blue player was apparently holding a Force of Will. So the combo could have been stopped. The blue players needed to reveal their interaction to each other because the win was threatened with the Abolisher resolving. I think if the Force of Will was revealed, the two could have come to an agreement to stop the win.
Man of his word. Will always respect that.
After watching and listening to the player interaction in that final round. I'm of the opinion that p3 broke player etiquette. Even without knowing he had interaction in hand, all P2 wanted him to do was activate his Thrasios to try and dig for something. P2 was trying to hold his MBT for the dockside that P1 just had bounced, because P1 also had a cloudstone on board. P3 didn't play to his outs and just spite held his interaction and refused to activate his Thrasios. P2 played the situation correctly imo as all he was asking was if P3 had anything to help stop him.
The blame imo lies on P2 for Priority bullying when he was told that P3 could deal with Dockside.
I think you may have meant Tyler from Play To Win? With the kinnan
First of all, thank you for these reviews on decks from cEDH! Your videos got me into cEDH and I’m going into my first tournament this sunday! A question: these decks that you’re reviewing, do the players play 1 vs 1 or 4 people? Bc I’m looking for decks that are using the cEDH banning list but is 1 vs 1!
I believe they're all 4 player games, 1v1 is its own format with its own banlist Cedh is just edh so it uses the same banlist as edh
Duel Commander and Archon are the current 1v1 competitive formats
Can't wait to see the Tayam Vid. Ever since I heard you talking about him in a previous vid I have been trying to learn/see how it works. Checking out that Etali build as I type.
4 and five color commander tier list sometime soon?? Pretty please???
Should be a self explanatory list lol
As a Nymris player, in order to stop priority bullying I’ve had to give up games. I wonder if I would do it at that level
You forgot to mention/show the Kinnan player: PingMeisterPong. I think he deserves the shoutout. A consistently good player. Also the Astral Dragon inclusion is kind of unique.
I would have but his deckname was an immature response to me telling him he was being rude, not really someone I'm going to go out of my way to talk about
@@ComedIanMTG Then I understand your choice.
@@ComedIanMTG You're supposedly putting out informational content, your personal feelings shouldn't get in the way of reporting the facts. You should have done the bare minimum to list the deck type and placement and then you could move on without elaboration.
EDIT: I made a mistake. I thought there were two Kinnan decks and that Ian had skipped Ping's. Still passive-aggressive, but he did in fact fulfill the bare minimum needed for informational integrity.
@@MasterDecoy1W I will respectfully disagree
@@MasterDecoy1W it's his channel. He's under no obligation to give screen time to someone taking personal shots at him.
As far as that finals match goes I think both players were at fault. Yes, the player with the mindbreak trap should’ve used it. But it was obvious the Rog/Silas player had interaction, but wanted to sandbag it for their combo turn. If the table had communicated properly and countered both the grand abolisher and what followed the game could’ve ended differently. The lesson of that match being play to your outs always.
Just a note both the Rog/Si and Kinnan player were holding interaction. Kinnan was the one with last priority to pass after the priority reset. Rog/Si had a daze in hand and had floated 1 blue but was keeping it for their combo turn expecting one of the 2 other players who argued about their counters (Kinnan who passed priority did a full hypothetical walkthrough of him countering GA and let slip he had an answer in the process. The Jeska player mentions this later in the combo) to counter it.
As a Saffi player i can say: The combos are easy to interact with (without abolisher etc.) But the biggest problem is the lack of good sac outlets. Altar of dementia(3 carc combo) is great, but other sac outlets are at leats 4 card combos.
Ehh not so much. The only one you need extra pieces for is Phyrexian Altar. All the rest of em only really have to assemble 2 cards from your deck alongside your commander. It's only ever really 3 when Saffi is inaccessible and Boonweaver is unusable. At that point, yes you need a third card to start looping.
Living and dying by 5 sac Outlets is a major feel bad though I can't deny.
I don't understand why it's considered priority "bullying". Both players made an identical choice to throw the game. Seems like its just a regular bluff/call strategy
It more so that the player priority bullying has known game state information that he has an answer to the current stack. The table knows he has a free counterspell, it was revealed, he's refusing to stop a win to try to get another player to spend their interaction. There's a difference in plays between "I might not win" and "I definitely lose", that player *knows* if this spell resolves they lose the game. Choosing not to counter is throwing the game. If nobody knows what anybody has in their hand, holding your interaction back and hoping the next seat answers it is a legitimate gamble to try and protect your own win attempt. When everyone knows you have Mindbreak Trap, and you refuse to stop a win with it, you have handed your opponent that win, especially since by not losing on the spot, you might get a chance at a win on your following turn anyway
@@some_hippies So the issue I have with that logic is that both players have given each other the same ultimatum - essentially "use your counter or the game ends". The priority order isn't really relevant since both players know that if the spell resolves, they lose the game. And both players made the same choice to throw it.
The guy refusing to play and give a game away seemed more like the bully tactic to me…
@@NicolasandDadThe guy just followed his word. He was being forced into an ultimatum that the guy with the MBT would literally do nothing even with the information that "P3 could do something about dockside"
Great video coverage 👍 loved it
Absolutely in love with that play. Congratulations on calling his bluff! You lose
Shout out to my friend Nillstan! Always keeping it spicy. Love to see him performing well outside of the local scene!
You mentioned playing drana and linvala. Was this in the 99 or the command zone. If in the command zone do you have a list?
In the 99
I don’t know the full situation but I’m curious if it mattered… if P1 was going for grand abolisher knowing there was a mindbreak trap p2, it seems likely he was doing so anticipating the abolisher getting countered and still having backup for the win.
Either way as is I think p4 was totally fair with warning and following through.
In the full gameplay video of the final. It comes up before the GA is cast (as a tutor is happening) that a silence effect would be the worst thing he could tutor for and they let that resolve. I'm not sure if the GA was in hand but p1 definitely knew then it was the right play.
Countering it with the MBT is a bad idea and gets discussed. Dockside was bounced with a cloudstone curio in play. P3 did a hypothetical walkthrough of if they did have a counter (and also mentioned by accident later on in discussion they had an answer to GA).
P2 passed knowing there was some interaction in hand that could've dealt with GA and let MBT completely stop the combo attempt without even needing to be cast (which also saves it for the Rog Si player with 6 mana available coming up).
P2 probably should of cast MBt but let's it go round once to see if P3 will search (note not asking to reset priority but just a search if they don't have anything) P3 refuses then passes. P4 floats a blue to reset priority also with a daze in hand. p3 rules checks to make sure he'll be last in priority. P2 passes to force a play for p3s known info(be it a counter or ottawara/boseju). P3 passes with the only answer he has being a counter and loses.
Honestly the best play of the whole game was p1 getting that silence effect out. Had it been a silence spell p3 uses their swansong no questions asked but because it's GA p3 would be down 2 cards to counter with force. Props to P1 for reading the table well
33:00 The player with Mindbreak Trap said that he wanted the 4th player to counter the Grand Abolisher because he suspected he had counters, and he wanted to use the Mindbreak Trap more efficiently (To exile Dockside). He also said that he asked the 4th player if he had counters, and he did not want to reveal information. He wanted that information because he didn’t want to use his Mindbreak Trap if it was the only interaction available since it would not be enough anyways, which I think is fair. On that occasion, I think the 4th did a spite play that made them all lose (since he had interaction, but wanted to save it because the 3rd was “priority bullying” him).
I think this is actually not what was happening. The mbt player wanted anyone else to use interaction so that he could win on his turn protected. What he did not want was to use his counterspell at all on this cycle. What pong said is correct in that player with dockside would never cast it into known mbt so if ga is countered with a non mbt spell it never gets cast and the mbt player instead moves to their turn to try win knowing interaction is all spent.
@@herschelruskin432 With 4 mana open Mindbreak trap doesn't protect a win, there'd have to be a ton of mana for that to work.
@freedomwaffle_ mbt doesn't necessarily protect his win. Using any other piece of interaction / thrasios activation does though. We know player 1 has nothing are led to belive player 2 doesn't either. Thus if player 3 is forced to use his player 2 is open to win. If player 2 uses mbt then he can't win into player 3 unknown unless very lucky and also might not be able to stop player 4/1 unless he just draw goes.
@@herschelruskin432 I understand that logic, but it was revealed later that p3 had Force of Will, Swan Song, and Resculpt in hand. Those can all be used better defensively than MBT can. Furthermore, in a competitive setting everyone is playing to win, not trying to even the playing field between counterspells.
Regardless, I was the player with Mindbreak Trap and I didn't have a win on my turn, though in p3's defense he didn't know that.
@freedomwaffle_ that's kind of my point though p4 can use his counters whenever right thus p3 suspecting he has them wants him to have to pitch cast force or tap out for thrasios. P3 must thus belief his only window to win is if p4 spends out interaction on p2. P4 doesn't want to use his interaction though a because it's hidden exactly what it is and thus could be bluffing but also knows if he interacts first p2 stops trying to win then p3 is free to do so.
It struck me as a comp to combat damage. When a player is at low life, you press an attack to force them into blocks. Player two pressed the issue and forced player 3 and 4 into a hard choice. If P3 casts trap, they're out of resources and there are followup plays that continue to press player 4's resources. Here the politics was also a resource. Can't promise not to win for a turn to get a favor, so P3 had no real leverage. P4 had to stand up to bullying and did so, and knew that giving in would probably give P3 the win anyways, so it was lose lose and no advantage to cater to P3's frustration. Tough event, and good on P2 for leveraging the resources.
Defs "die on my feet rather than live on my knees" energy. What a legend. Also interesting how mardu decks in cedh haven't got much stax representation. Naus and reanimate/midrange. I feel like there is a kaalia stax list waiting to be born.
Damn I love that jeska tymna deck. Not sure why i haven't seen it before, nore why I didn't think of it as a partner paring.
fair play to that player. because I've seen some stinkers in cEDH before on camera, where priority bullying goes on. I'm ggoing to call out the person that did it, because while it is allowed, I massively look down on it. So the former Lab maniacs had a game, where one was going off with his lab man combo. Siggi, knowing Dan has a counterspell in his hand, also had the lab man finish next turn, and tapped a land to force priority to go around the table again. what he wanted to do was to get Dan to tap his mana so Dan couldn't counter his lab man win when he went off right after Cameron, so he said "Dan, I'm going to need you to tap that island there, so priority can get back to me". Dan then did it and Siggi countered the spell and then the turn passed to ziggi, he untaps, pulls the combo and wins. the right thing for Dan to do was to say "f**k it, I pass" and then Cameron won the game.
I don't care if I call people out that do this, if you do this at a LGS or anywhere, I don't see why people would want to play with you. So fair play to this player here.
At the end of the day your playing agaist 3 people all sitting on instant win conditions. If I counter one the other wins…. Seems like the game devolves into “my interaction is only there to protect my win”. Why would I help one of my opponents “not lose”.
What is priority bullying? I don't understand.
To explain it simply it is players passing their priority to typically the last player in turn order to force then into using interaction in order to not lose.
Need help with ad naus decks… how many cards to they need to draw?? My thought is with ad naus/bolas citadel meta is ankh of mishra a legit card to play?? If I T1 it… opponents can take 10 by fetching in 2 dual lands… more for shocks… 13 if they hit a mana crypt trigger…
Will mono-color decks ever stand as much of a chance as multi-colored decks? Idk how they could give them some love without helping multi-color as well.
Wasn't there a Magda deck that won a tournament not to long ago?
@@thezerowulf2046 there's magda and k'rrik
As TAYAM goes on?? 🥁
Im sorry if you get asled this a lot. How can i submit my decklist to you for review/decktech?
That's a patron reward at the $25 after a few months
@@ComedIanMTG nice. Thank you!
Yeah cant blame the guy. He may have not won, but he won many cedh players hearts!
🤣🤣🤣
I had to take a break from magic for work but I’m catching up on stuff; good content.
Still here playing Shorikai Humility making everyone weep new players and old. Why does no one really play much enchantment removal now? Not that I’m complaining. Seems like bad deck building from my opponents 😂
Some really cool decks here, Atraxa, and Tayam are my favs. As far as the priority bully getting punished, sluts get cut I guess.
Honestly I'm with waffle on this one. I do really hat priority bullying, but I don't even know that I would call it priority bullying considering that he wanted to trap the dockside to make sure the threat was gone forever rather than the abolisher. Waffle was really good with communication, asking multiple times whether Kokkoi had anything in his hand, but he just refused to answer. Ping also had a Thrasios activation that he refused to use for some reason. It seemed like everyone except waffle just refused to communicate at all. Considering Waffle was the only one making any attempt at clear communication and had very solid reasoning it's hard to blame him here. I wouldn't have felt good leaving this game as anyone other than Gary.
can confirm this. felt very weird being in game and only waffle trying to find a solution to my GA.
Ping also previously says " I can handle the dockside" to me freedom is justified in passing and assuming he has a creature counter force or will pact whatever, unless ping shows him and proves he dosent, like if you have some super narrow answer to dockside like blueblast just show it . Of course it turned out he did have the force lmao.
@@garretgeorge9721hat do you mean by that? he had an answer for GA in hand, lol. And Robin confirmed that he „can handle the dockside“, because you will never be stupid enough to cast Dockside into the MBT, which you knew about.
@@089Memo90 Hey memo. Yea this is not as straight for me as some other people are making it out to be. Obviously if GA gets hit by something other than the MBT I would not knowingly cast dockside into MBT you have that right. The problem comes down to freedom waffle having nothing for his turn to threaten a win, and using his only interaction. Where ping has not revealed anything aside from "potentially being able to have an answer" i say potentially because I don't know ping and haven't played with him before but this is CEDH people bluff and lie about what they have. Nothing was revealed from ping's POV. idk its complicated IMO and hard to discuss over a youtube comment section and would be better off discussed via voice chatting.
Don't get me wrong i'm pretty upset and annoyed how the finals ended. Not a way I enjoy "winning" especially with having an awesome opening start and solid development to get to top 4 in my first online tournament. But it is what it is. The fact this happened completely takes away from the achievement for me.
@@WhoTFareyou2 was there proof he had the force because to me if it wasnt shown on stream or picture in hand during game its just naysay. i'm not trying to call people out or call people liars but bluffing is a major factor in the game.
If the trap was known information and the trap owner ignored the warning than he made his choice to lose. payment/placement for the losers of the pod should be based in priority order too imo. 1st prio after winner gets second and so on.😊
Nah, just have 1 winner and top 4 prizing. No reason to subdivide prizing because that makes a whole other can of worms. The current system is good.
@@Dracomandriuthus Yeah I see a lot of cedh tournaments have like a 1st place and then also individual prizes for 2nd, 3rd and 4th respectively and I'm always like but how do you figure that out smoothly?
@@Hard1sh 1st is the tournament winner. Usually 2nd - 4th is determined by your swiss standing.
one activation of faerie mastermind with con sphinx only draws 7 not the 3 extra. Idk why so many people think 1 activation triggers his first ability, it's only when your opponent draws a 2nd card
I’m waiting for a set review on Aftermath!
Not sure if that one is gonna happen
Another Grrr-eat Bear-akdown, Ian!🐻 I already said it in the heated Twitter discussion, - and also after listening to the RAW footage from the finals - I have a ton of respect for P4 keeping his word! Maybe the community should think about some kind of Competitive Honor Code for tournaments?
Honestly i think the priority bullying thing was kinda hilarious and props to pmp for doing it. Fw shouldve known that the stales for him were super low - answer the abolisher and have fw go off next turn with protection or let gary go off and win. I'd have done the same, let the guy whos bullying you get punished.
Hilarious to see the wild grin on the Etali deck, its great to see new brews and content creators actually into them too!
This is the reason why you can't place value in these results or any sort of tier list that relates to commander. It comes down to the players making mistakes or king making. You said player 2 priority bullied player 4? So that means player 3 got screwed over and the winner won off the back of stubbornness.
The reason of this being the thumbnail and description was that the incident was noteworthy, rare and atypical. The clear understanding for this video and commentary is that this is the exception to the rule of how things normally go
@@ComedIanMTG I disagree, I've been to several tournaments now, not as many as you mind you. But in each tournament there has always been a player who should not have been sitting at the pod. They are either not playing a competitive deck, not taking it seriously or even worse in the pod with a mate. You cannot have a definitive top 4 because along the way the actual top players have gotten knocked out due to some clown king making or helping his mate out.
There’s a lot more context that Ian is leaving out (probably because he wasn’t there) and there’s a much larger conversation to be had around what happened. It wasn’t an abuse of the priority system, and if this needed more discussion then Ian should talk with the players involved.
The word abuse was never used, priority bullying is a shorthand. It's a valid strategy, the part I'm calling greedy was after being told multiple times that they wouldn't interact they still chose to go for it
@@ComedIanMTG I never said you used the word abuse. What I said was that there is a ton more context to this situation that was left out of this video. Furthermore, the whole sequence of events can be broken down further than this, and faults can be applied to both sides of the situation, but that didn’t happen in this video.
What this situation could create is a form of gatekeeping, where people who are not internet names in the community start to second guess participating in events, simply because they don’t want to get piled on online by people they generally respect or even admire.
Respect for not getting priority bullied
I think its Cool AF that player 4 wouldn't be bullied! Kudo's
Player in 4th is an absolute goat.
That etali deck isn't on mana crypt 💀💀💀💀💀💀💀
Lol what!?!?!
@ComedIan MTG look again I swear to God lmao. Man's got the 9 mana commander no mana crypt
Weirdly based…I think…
@@089Memo90 would be if there was artifact hate, but theres not lol
@@cnnr00you laugh now, but when you lose a crypt trigger with 3HP you’ll understand Connor…
YEAH NEW ETALI WOOOH
I just want to point out in good faith I'm in discord with waffle the other guy had 2 counters in hand as well so they could of countered it as well but chose not to
Fucking based.
Because he was being forced to reveal information through an ultimatum
My question is
How did this happen?
Why did player 1 go for the win if he knew there was two pieces of interaction? From player 2 and player 4.
Just listened to moderately anonymous UA-cam video and came here.
We’re all talking about politics.
But how did this happen In the first place? Why go for the win knowing there is interaction
Did he have two pieces of protection!?
Alright I’m watching your video now comedian
player 1 was rog si and did not go for the win. I was player 2 and the interaction was unknown at the time of tutoring for grand abolisher. The thrasios was activated in response where a MBT was revealed.
It is easy to make assumptions off snippets of gameplay but if you weren't there for the entire uncommentated match I would try and reserve judgement.
The entire table mulled very low except for me and I punished them by casting an early jeska to pop dorks and rograkh. I felt comfortable casting GA into mindbreak trap because I had another silence in hand and a defense grid in the bin able to be welded in.
@@garretgeorge9721the intention of my post was not to accuse or be judgmental though it comes off that way so I apologize
Moderately anonymous did a horrible job explaining the situation
So I apologize for my post.
This context is EXACTLY what I needed.
I didn’t even know it was over a grand abolisher! Thank you much and congrats on the win.
WGD very much alive!!
@@garretgeorge9721 so you won't bc you opponents allowed it out of spite...
@@Destrudo5359 sorry this comment doesn't make sense. please rephrase if you want a response
I really respect that player 4 for sticking to his word and letting the Abolisher resolve. I think that angle-shooting, toxic attitudes, etc. are a huge problem with competitive Magic that drives people away from it. If that sh*t happens to you at your first tournament, there's a good chance you never come back. I think we can be competitive and still good people.
the "drama" kinda boils down to something like two people unwilling to give way on the highway and ended up in a car crash
except this is just cedh and you got a "next chance" to play or be better at communicating or playing
but in the car crash analogy those people could have been dead or very injured
so the real thing that matters is the outcome
who cares if it is "your right of way" when the stakes are much higher than just a game of chicken?
but anyways teammarduforever~
Hello. My name shows up under your coaching tier, however, I’ve never had nor paid for that so could you please remove my name from that. It’s been several videos now. Thanks.
That's weird....I'll look at it
Waffle tried to maximise his chance of winning by passing priority since he was confident the other player had interaction (it was confirmed later he was right, but had he been wrong i don't think it changes anything). The other player passing looks to me like kingmaking: "I'm not winning so neither will you"
No he had the chance to interact and refused unless they played their hands first or straight up tapping out that’s the definition of mana bullying and he deserved the loss
@__ I don't really get this argument, then wasn't he information bullying the thrasios player? Personally I would be fine with both (in CEDH) but why do you believe information bullying is ok but priority bullying isn't? They both try to keep their resources, in this case free interaction, to have a better shot at winning later. It seems to me Ping was salty Waffle had a read on him and turned what would have been a lower chance of winning for Ping (him countering with his Force of will) into a guaranteed loss for everyone aka kingsmaking
@@shwars576 he theasisosd before the ga was on the stack on the last turn cycle so he would’ve thrassioed anyway, had he thrassioed in response to ga I could see your point
im not mad about it or anything but its funny how people jump in a triangle to try to make that throw not be anything other than sad and embarassing
Yeah the part of the phrase “-bullying” should be the clue it’s a poor moral playstyle, and I’m always ecstatic to see just desserts
Uh oh! Lol ❤❤❤
so player 3 had thrasios activation, player 4 said he has something, it is no fault of player 2 to keep trap and pass priority knowing these 2 people can easily pass priority back to him AND SAID SO. I would even say player 3 and 4 did a win- trade and lost on purpose beacuse thier way to bully player 2 didn't work and they got mad, it should not exist in cedh tournament setting and OFFICIALY refusing to play the game/win the game/ continue playing the game, that player should be banned from any further tournament play
Seriously don't have a title like that and talk about other stuff beforehand. I don't click the link for that.
First of all, thank you for these reviews on decks from cEDH! Your videos got me into cEDH and I’m going into my first tournament this sunday! A question: these decks that you’re reviewing, do the players play 1 vs 1 or 4 people? Bc I’m looking for decks that are using the cEDH banning list but is 1 vs 1!
4 person pods are generally what these tournaments are!
4 player free for all
(1 v 1 v 1 v 1)
Thank you kindly!
Pods are 4 people. 1v1 is a separate format.