Let's start with the following: I think that cEDH and EDH are essentially the same format in the way that Legacy and Kitchen Table Magic with old cards are the same format, or how a Modern meta deck and a Modern legal deck belong to the same format, despite vastly different power levels. Decks are build with the same legality, yet are so harshly different that they might just be different formats, yet they aren't, technically; or so I think.
At which point does a format change into another? If you aren't already familiar with it, please read up on the
Ship of Theseus, because it's a similar case that has been discussed for a long time.
Time to discuss the following question:
> What constitutes the identity of the EDH format?
At first, the answer seems simple. The EDH format is what the RC has made it out to be when they created it. They laid out a
philosophy that specifies what EDH is supposed to be. Let's take a look at its current state and see if its components still hold true for cEDH:
Commander is for fun. It’s a socially interactive, multiplayer Magic: the Gathering format full of wild interactions and epic plays, specifically designed as an alternative to tournament Magic.
I don't see how cEDH would violate this principle. It is played for fun and social interaction, as it also is a multiplayer format, just like EDH. "
Wild interactions and epic plays" most certainly happen, as anyone who has seen a gigantic stack of spells and triggers being built can attest.
As for being an alternative to tournament Magic, this is debateable, as far as I'm concerned, since cEDH lends itself well to being a tournament format (let's assume that cEDH and EDH are different formats, at least as long as this argument is ongoing). But it's also a format that is being played in side events of formats like Legacy or Modern, since it *is* an alternative and isn't officially supported for tournaments.
[...] Commander focuses on a resonant experience. Each game is a journey the players share, relying on a social contract in which each player is considerate of the experiences of everyone involved--this promotes player interaction, inter-game variance, a variety of play styles, and a positive communal atmosphere.
For the sake of brewity, I'll treat "
resonant experience" and "
social contract" as the same thing. cEDH holds this up as all players involved are playing to win and to demonstrate playing and deckbuilding skill, as would be expected from a format where the c stands for competitive. This is where cEDH players resonate and the base they form their social contract on. One might say that it comes down to "playing to win", in the
David Sirlin way. (Recommended reading, although not further necessary for this discussion). We can check this box, as well. It's a social contract, albeit a short one.
The addition of a commander, larger life total, and deck building restrictions emphasize the format’s flavor; they increase deck variance and add more opportunities for participation and expression.
This is where cEDH diverges from EDH. Flavor is nice, but doesn't contribute to competitiveness in any way, therefore it doesn't contribute to cEDH. Decks are still build within the same set of rules, but the only flavor is the winning flavor, which conflicts with the RC philosophy.
The goal of the ban list is similar; it does not seek to regulate competitive play or power level, which are decisions best left to individual play groups. The ban list seeks to demonstrate which cards threaten the positive player experience at the core of the format or prevent players from reasonable self-expression. The primary focus of the list is on cards which are problematic because of their extreme consistency, ubiquity, and/or ability to restrict others’ opportunities.
A direct contradiction to the nature of cEDH, right on the banlist. Although cEDH playgroups could always make house rules, this does not help unify it as a format or as a healthy part of EDH, since without proper bannings, brokenness will ensue. The addition of
Thassa's Oracle or the unbanning of
Protean Hulk make that clear as day. Similar things could be said about the ban of
Paradox Engine, but that is another discussion.
But, if we're going by the second bold statement, banning based on competitiveness can be implied: "[...]
because of their extreme consistency, ubiquity, and/or ability to restrict others’ opportunities.". The current landscape of cEDH has combos and cards that fulfill those criteria. It's a problem EDH may have, just on another scale. A card that is problematic on the kitchen table might be worthless in high level play or vice versa. It's essentially the same problem, just from another perspective.
We encourage groups to use the rules and the ban list as a baseline to optimize their own experience. This is not license for an individual to force their vision onto a play group, but encouragement for players to discuss their goals and how the rules might be adjusted to suit those goals. The format can be broken; we believe games are more fun if you don’t.
And here is where I think cEDH and EDH diverge, too. While it has been discussed to create a seperate banlist (and therefore seperate rules for cEDH), it's what would end cEDH, since it would no longer be EDH - sharing the same rules (not necessarily the same philosophy) is what makes it competitive *EDH* and not another format entirely.
As the goal of any competitive format should be to break it so hard that cards need to be banned (until it stabilizes), the second statement is akin to a death sentence when it comes to cEDH belonging to EDH in terms of philosophy. Although it's just a statement of the RC and the cEDH community obviously likes to break stuff, it's problematic since the RC doesn't actually ban problematic cards, therefore never stabilizing the meta.
---------------------------------
Considering the above, cEDH shares the same set of rules as EDH, but does not share the same philosophy when it comes to play experience. If we're being technical, we can consider cEDH to be the same format by design and rules, but not the same format by nature. The only solution I can offer is to start incorporating necessary bans into the RC banlist, as they often don't touch on casual, non-competitive play, while ensuring a healthy format of the top level of play.
cEDH differs from EDH in how Modern differs from Kitchen Table Magic with Modern legality. It's the same game, driven to it's logical conclusion, since the goal of the game is to win. Everything else is secondary, although those secondary natures of the game are to be found in EDH, they have mostly no place in cEDH, since it *is* competitive and nothing else.
---------------------------------
Please share your opinions and arguments. I'm interested what others have to say about this problem. I think that cEDH and EDH are inherently the same format, playing by the same rules, yet to other goals, and a direct comparison of the RC EDH philosophy and the competitive nature of cEDH proves that, I think.