Magic Tournament Rules Addendum

Updated: Wed, Apr 23, 2025

Introduction

The following document acts as an extension to the existing official Magic Tournament Rules (MTR) for use in Competitive Rules Enforcement Level commander events (commonly referred to as cEDH) in the UK.

This will address smaller local events through to larger events such as qualifiers & multi day events. By having this document, events throughout the country will be consistent and TOs (Tournament Organisers) will have a central reference point to aid event set-up. Any deviations from these documents should be kept to a minimum and specifically stated on the event page along with an announcement before round 1 begins to ensure players are aware of any changes.

Please note, the following rules may vary when the event being hosted is a qualifier. Events classified as a qualifier may need to follow an alternative ruleset which will be at the discretion of the organisation hosting the event being qualified for. Events which follow different rules should link to the respective rules document on their event pages.

Code of Conduct

In addition to rules defined in MTR - 5.4 - Unsporting Conduct, the following rules also apply:

• Players are expected to foster a welcoming and accepting community. Discrimination based on disability, race, gender, sexual identity, religion, or any other physical, cultural, or social characteristic will not be tolerated.
• We expect all our competitors to behave with sportsmanship at all times. This includes, but is not limited to, graciousness in both winning and losing, respect for their opponents, and behaving in a fair, kind, and reasonable manner.
• “Spite plays”, “kingmaking”, and intentionally losing or “throwing” are examples of unsportsmanlike behaviour and may be subject to penalty or suspension. Check the section below for more details.
• Players are expected to have a general understanding of how to operate the system(s) that they are using to play in the tournament. This includes, but is not limited to: properly reporting match results, finding their game, or using tournament software. Failure to do so in a timely fashion will result in an infraction. Tournament officials may exercise their discretion in assisting players with solving their technical issues, but are in no way required to do so.

MTR Amendments

Below are the amendments made to the official MTR to adapt it for cEDH. Each is named to reflect which section of the MTR they modify and link to the original version.

MTR 1 - Tournament Fundamentals

1.10 - Players

Original

Players are additionally responsible for being familiar with the rules contained within this document.

MTR 2 - Tournament Mechanics

2.1 Match Structure

Original

In Multiplayer Tournaments, the usual number of Games required to win a Match is one. If a Game ends in a Draw, a new Game is started including every Player in the Pod.

The winner of a Match is the Player that won the required number of Games, or the Player that has won the most Games.

In the case of a tie, the Match is a Draw between the Players that participated in that Match, with the exception of Players that received Match Loss penalties or Players that conceded the Match.

2.2 Play/Draw Rule

Original

Players are seated in a predetermined order established by the pairing software with Seat One as the starting player.

2.3 Pregame Procedure

Original

Commanders are revealed prior to shuffling and presenting decks. A game should not start until all players are present or 5 minutes have elapsed in the round. Players are not allowed to change commanders between rounds and must use the commander(s) that they submitted with their decklist.

2.4 End-of-Match Procedure

Original

When time is called, the active player finishes their turn, and there are no additional turns. The game ends when the active player passes their turn. If a non-active player is acting in the end step of the active turn, when time is called, the subsequent turn becomes the final one. A time limit of 20 minutes should be applied to the final turn when time is called.

In single-elimination rounds, matches may not end in a draw. If a single-elimination match would end in a draw, for example due to the time limit for the round being reached, then the player who was seeded highest at the end of Swiss will be the winner.

Optionally a Tournament Organiser can opt to have a match end with additional turns. In this case the number of additional turns should be equal to the number of players who haven’t been eliminated from the game. If this is chosen then it should be clearly communicated to players both on the event announcement page and as part of the players meeting at the start of the event.

2.5 Conceding or Intentionally Drawing Games or Matches

Original

During a multiplayer game, players are encouraged to concede while they have priority, and the stack is empty on their own turn. A player who needs to concede at any other time will be dropped from the event and must talk to a tournament organizer in order to re-enter. In this case, a judge will facilitate any mandatory detrimental triggers of the conceded player until the stack is empty, any non-detrimental triggers will be missed. In the event this happens in response to combat, the turn will be facilitated until the end of combat, with the conceded player declaring no blockers to any creatures that are attacking them.

MTR 3 - Tournament Rules

3.1 Tiebreakers

Original

Any player receiving a bye will have 3 opponents added to their opponent history with a 0.2 win rate percentage.

3.13 Hidden Information

Original

If a player accidentally gains information about another players hand, such as through that player not sufficiently hiding their hand from the player next to them, then they are free to communicate that information to the other players should they wish to.

MTR 4 - Communication

4.1 Player Communication

Original

The active player may request the table to stop excessively influencing game actions to progress play. This covers situations where a player is attempting to perform a game action and other players are trying to influence the action to their benefit, e.g. attempting to convince a player to target another player’s creature with their Swords to Plowshares etc.Failure to do so may result in an Unsporting Conduct - Minor penalty.

If players are talking excessively while holding priority then this should be treated as Slow Play or potentially Stalling.

MTR 5 - Tournament Violations

5.4 Unsporting Conduct

Original

5.4.1 Coercion

Coercing a Player into performing an action over threat of losing the Game to another Player.

Coercion can happen in non-verbal ways too. It’s not Coercion if actions are discussed within a timing where the affect Player is not yet under pressure to perform that action. When proposing intentional draws, Players can discuss the terms and reveal hands, but they can’t attempt to coerce Players that aren’t in accordance.

Coercion Examples:

• Alice is presenting a win, Bob has an answer, but passes priority since they see that Diane has untapped lands, and they believe Charles has an answer. Since Charles passes priority to Diane, it’s not acceptable that Bob asks Diane to: “Tap a land so that I get priority back, otherwise we lose!”.
• Alice is presenting a win, Bob has an answer, but passes priority since they see that Diane has untapped lands, and they believe Charles has an answer. Since Charles passes priority to Diane, it’s not acceptable that Bob reveals the answer from their hand at this point with the expectation that Diane taps a land in order for Bob to get the priority back.
• Alice is presenting a win, Bob has an answer, but notices that Diane has a Thrasios, Triton Hero, and available mana to activate it. It is acceptable that before passing priority, Bob reminds Diane that they can Draw a card to find an answer.
• Alice is presenting a win, Bob has a win next turn and this is known information. It’s not acceptable that Charles attempts to coerce a Player into intentionally drawing: “If you don’t want to Draw, then I will cast Silence and you lose to Bob” or “You have to accept the Draw, or else we will kill you and we Draw anyway”.
• Alice is presenting a win, Bob has a win next turn and this is known information. It is acceptable that Charles attempts to politely reason with the Players, without threatening to hand over the win to Bob: Alice, I have this Silence. Do you want to Draw? No? Ok.” - “What about you, Bob and Diane? Are you ok with making a deal to kill Alice and Draw afterwards? It would be better if Alice accepted the Draw, since Bob can break the deal and we might end up losing the Game instead of everyone drawing”.

5.4.2 Collusion

Colluding with an Opponent in order to benefit them in the Tournament.

Collusion typically occurs when a Player intentionally takes an action that is detrimental to themselves in order to benefit an Opponent. It’s not Collusion if the action is a result of a unintentional strategical error.

Collusion examples:

• It would be Collusion if:
  • Alice is presenting a win, Bob has an answer and uses it. Charlie uses their answer to stop Bob’s, in order to ensure Alice wins the Match. The Judge’s investigation determines that Charlie is friends with Alice and wants Alice to move to the single elimination portion of the Tournament, and that’s why they used their answer. Charlie is Colluding with Alice and vice-versa.
  • Alice is presenting a win, Daniel has an answer and uses it. Charlie uses their answer to stop Daniel’s, in order to ensure Alice wins the Match. The Judge’s investigation determines that Charlie is friends with Bob and wants Alice to be penalized by collusion in order to give Bob the chance to try and win against Daniel, and that’s why they used their answer. Charlie is Colluding with Bob and vice-versa.
• It would not be Collusion if:
  • Alice is presenting a win, Bob has a win on their next turn and Charlie has an answer to stop Alice and allow Bob to win the Game. In this situation Charlie could conceivably be colluding with Alice or Bob by either not performing an action or by performing an action. However it is also possible that no Collusion is happening. It will be up to the Judge’s investigation to determine if there is Collusion or not.

5.4.3 Spite Play

Performing a detrimental action with the sole purpose of penalizing an Opponent out of Spite.

It’s not Spite Play if the action is a result of a unintentional strategical error.

Spite Play examples:

• It would be Spite Play if:
  • Alice is presenting a win that makes use of Bob’s existing permanents in order to function. Bob feels disgruntled with Alice’s previous interactions in the Game and scoops up their cards, conceding, in order to prevent Alice from winning the Game. Bob is performing a Spite Play against Alice.
• It would not be Spite Play if:
  • Alice is presenting a win that makes use of Bob’s existing permanents in order to function. Bob activates their Necropotence enough times so that they lose the Game. Bob hopes that the Game ends in a Draw, and as such this is not a Spite Play.

In Multiplayer Tournaments, sometimes it will surface the idea that a Player is “Kingmaking” another Player. This notion of Kingmaking is only problematic if it falls under the category of Collusion or Spite Play. Otherwise, it can be a simple unintentional strategical error, and that’s not regulated by Judges.

When investigating these matters, Judges need to take special attention to not reveal strategic information to Players at the table. An Opponent can potentially accuse a Player of Spite Play or Collusion in order to extract strategically relevant information from the Judge’s ruling, for example:

• Player A calls a judge because Player B is casting a Pact of Negation, targeting one of their spells, while Player B only seemingly has 3 available mana in their next upkeep. A Judge comes over, sees this and asks to see Player B’s hand, noticing a Dark Ritual, then dismissing the Spite Play / Collusion claim. Player A, C and D noticed this interaction and now think that Player B must have an instant that can provide mana or a way to win at instant speed in their upkeep.

The problem with this situation is that if Player B was actually doing as Spite Play, they must be penalized immediately so that the integrity of the Game is not compromised any further. However, investigating this, will leak some information, so Judges need to be careful to minimize these leaks:

• By asking the Player if they are aware of the Spite play rules in the open, without seeing their hand, they are simply reiterating what the Player already signalled by casting the Pact of Negation in the first place, minimizing the information leak.

Tournament Structure

Match Points

Players earn 5 match points for each match win, 0 points for each match loss, and 1 match point for each match ending in a draw. Players receiving byes are considered to have won the match. All players listed on a Match must agree to an intentional draw in order to report a Match as such.

Pairing Guidelines

Priority should be given to forming as many pods with 4 players as possible each round. In cases where this isn’t possible, pods may consist of a minimum of 3 players to avoid multiple byes. However, no more than one pod of 3 players should be formed per round, ensuring that only 2 or fewer byes are given due to player count each round. For smaller event sizes it may be better to not use byes as the impact of multiple byes on standings could be more detrimental than multiple 3 player pods. Below is a table of the recommended maximum number of byes to allow based on event size.

Based on this if an event has 21 players then there should be 1 bye and 5 pods of 4 players each round. If an event has 22 players then there should be 0 byes, 4 pods of 4 players, and 2 pods of 3 players each round. If an event has 42 players then there should be 2 byes and 10 pods of 4 players.

Tie Breakers

All player’s tie breakers will be calculated the same regardless if a player received a bye or not. Any player receiving a bye will have 3 opponents added to their opponent history with a .2 win rate percentage. The lower limit for a tie breaker is updated to .2 for all players

Swiss Rounds

This will be subject to player attendance, but the Tournament Organiser (TO) reserves the right to adjust the following to meet venue/time constraints. Adjustments may not be available when hosting qualifiers that adopt rules from other TOs.

Each swiss round lasts 80 minutes. When time is called then End-of-Match procedure should be followed. Normally this will mean the active player finishes their turn and has a maximum of 20 minutes to do this.

Optionally the TO may choose to have additional turns when time is called as detailed in End-of-Match procedure, this decision is down to the TO but should take into consideration venue opening times etc.

Top Cut - Playoffs

Players in top cut will play in seed order with the highest seed taking the first turn.

Pods for top 16 should be created as such, where the numbers are players with the given seed after the Swiss portion:

Pods for top 10 should be created as such, where players in the first and second seeds are automatically advanced to the finals:

There is no time limit in the single elimination portion (except exceeding venue time limit). In the case where players decide to Intentionally Draw a game during the single elimination portion, a 120 minutes round time limit will be enforced, starting from when the round began.

This is done to prevent the potential situation of a single elimination round being extended indefinitely by repeated Intentional Draws. This means that players are free to Intentionally Draw a game, but by doing so, the next game(s) they play will have to take the clock into consideration.

After 120 minutes, pods that had one or more Intentional Draws are only allowed to continue playing as long as there other Pods still playing, that haven’t Intentionally Drawn and thus aren’t subjected to the 120 minutes limit. After 120 minutes, if there are no other pods still playing, that haven’t Intentionally Drawn, the Match follows the standard End-of-Match procedure for the Tournament.

Top 4 - Finals

The Finals seating will be based on the standings the players got during the Swiss portion, with the highest ranked player going first. The Semi final matches don’t affect this.

It is recommended that the finals has no time limit unlike the Top Cut, even after intentional draws. Should a time limit be required, for example due to venue opening times, then TO discretion is advised to choose an appropriate time limit based on their situation.

Event Software

cEDH UK recommends the use of TopDeck or Spicerack.

For tournament organisers wishing to use TopDeck there is a cEDH UK account that can be used. Spicerack is free to use but is intended to be linked to a store.

Each event page will allow you to submit your decklist and view pairings and standings. There is also a mobile app for players to access the same information.

Playtest Cards

There are three different terms to refer to Magic cards that aren’t actual Magic cards. Proxies, Playtest Cards, and Counterfeits.

From the WPN Terms and Conditions section 5:

(j) Proxy Cards. Retail Stores may only allow “proxy” cards in your Events as described in the current official Magic Tournament Rules. A proxy card is a card issued by a Judge at an Event to replace a card that has become damaged during the course of play in such Event and may only be used for the duration of that Event.
(k) Counterfeit Cards. Counterfeit cards are unauthorized reproductions of authentic Wizards cards. Counterfeit cards are strictly prohibited by Wizards. WPN Members who knowingly manufacture, import, use or distribute counterfeit cards (or facilitate the same by a third party) will have their WPN Membership immediately terminated. Wizards reserves all rights in law and at equity to prosecute individuals engaged in the manufacture, importation or distribution of counterfeit cards.
(l) Playtest Cards. A playtest card is most commonly a basic resource with the name of a different card written on it with a marker. Playtest cards are not reproductions of authentic Wizards products and are created by players for personal and non-commercial use to test deck concepts. The use of playtest cards is allowed within Retail Stores only for non-commercial use in unsanctioned events.

Counterfeit cards are not allowed, the inclusion of any such cards in your deck will result in immediate disqualification. We do not support the production of illegitimate cards.

Players will often refer to Proxy cards when they mean Playtest cards. This document will assume that unless stated otherwise any mention by players or event staff to Proxy cards refers to Playtest cards.

We understand that most cEDH decks require a significant financial investment, often prohibitive for players. Some cards are so expensive that it makes many players uncomfortable to physically play with their authentic cards. When signing up for events please check each individual page for their playtest rules.

• Players are responsible for making sure their playtest cards are acceptable by the Judge Team, and are expected to check the validity with them.

• The Judge Team will evaluate the cards using the same principles defined in the MTR - 3.3 - Authorized Cards, with the exception of the following points:

• Authorized Game Cards must be regulation-sized , genuine Magic cards publicly released by Wizards of the Coast.

  • Ignore the strike through text

• Cards that, unaltered, feature gold borders on their front or back, and cards from the “Heroes of the Realm”, Theros block “Challenge Deck” series, silver bordered cards and acorn symbolled cards are not Authorized Game Cards.

  • Ignore the strike through text

Judges

Our Judges are here to help you! If you notice anything that seems shady, odd, or out of place, please call a Judge. If you have any rules questions, please call a Judge. In addition to the directives defined in this document, the Judge team will follow the directives in the following documents, so it is in your interest to get familiar with them:

Official MTR

Official IPG

Throughout the event, Judges will perform deck checks. This process includes verifying that all cards in a player’s deck match the registered decklist. Make sure the decklist you register is accurate.

In events with multiple judges, you may appeal rulings given by any judge who is not the head judge or a designated appeals judge. Please refer to MTR 2.9 on the appropriate way to appeal.

Recording and Image Capture

At cEDH UK events photography and video recording may take place for the purposes of promotion or gameplay capture. If you would like to be excluded from this please notify the TO prior to the event.

Changelog

2025-04-16

• Lots of reorganising of the doc compared to the original word doc to group things together more logically and try to keep things related to the different MTR sections together.
• Updated match structure to specify a match is first to one game win, to allow game draws in both swiss and single elimination portions of an event.
• Updated End-of-Match procedure to specify the time limit for the final players turn and add an option for TOs to use turns if they wish.
• Updated Conceding games or matches to specify that when a player concedes at any time other than on their turn that the judge will only ensure detrimental triggers are properly handled, all other triggers will be missed and the player will declare no blockers should they concede during combat.
• Clarified Hidden Information being shareable if a player is accidentally showing cards in their hand, such as to the player sat next to them. This is inline with the official MTR but added this to ensure it’s covered here too. Removed the section on sharing hidden information willingly with one or more players as this is now part of the official MTR.
• Updated Player Communication to clarify that it applies for excessively trying to influence an action a player is trying to take and not for talking too much while holding priority, which should be handled as Slow Play or Stalling.
• Removed the section on Reversing Decisions. The official MTR already covers things well enough in this area.
• Removed the section allowing non-deterministic loops. Many scenarios encountered in cEDH that look non-deterministic are actually deterministic so this exception isn’t actually needed.
• Added a table showing recommended number of byes to offer based on event size. Feedback on these numbers is greatly appreciated, both in terms of how the standings ended up and in terms of how they byes vs 3 player pods felt for the players.
• Added references to the end of match procedure for the swiss rounds along with standardising on 80 minute rounds.
• Clarified single elimination time limits in the case of intentional draws.