Why Have Fortifications Not Been Explored in Further Detail?
Spoilers, Rumors, and Speculation forum
Posted on July 24, 2016, 12:56 a.m. by DemonDragonJ
The Time Spiral block, and, in particular, Future Sight, introduced many interesting new ideas to the game, some of which have been explored in further detail, but other have not been.
One particular idea that I found to be very fascinating was that of fortifications, artifacts that can be attached to lands, similar to how equipment are attached to creatures. I believe that there is great potential to explore in that area, yet only one fortification, Darksteel Garrison, has ever been printed, which I find to be very unfortunate, considering the great number of enchantments that can be attached to lands that exist.
Given the usage of the word "darksteel" in the name of that fortification, I thought that it might be reprinted in the Scars of Mirrodin block, along with more fortifications, but it was not; then, I thought that such cards would make sense in the Battle for Zendikar block, with that block's focus on land and defending the plane from the Eldrazi, and there still were no fortifications. Since neither of those two blocks had fortifications, I wonder if there is any possibility for them to appear in Kaladesh, since that plane shall likely have a strong focus on artifacts.
What does everyone else say about this? Why has WotC not explored fortifications in greater detail?
Honestly it just seems like a bad concept and not one that could be made into a big enough idea to warrant putting it into standard.
July 24, 2016 1:08 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #5
This thread was moved to a more appropriate forum(auto-generated comment)
July 24, 2016 1:59 a.m.
@EmblemManThere have been much worse concepts created thus far, an obvious one from EMN is meld. I'm sorry, but borrowing mechanics like "fusion" from Yu-gi-oh is not really a step forward in creativity or practicality for a game like MTG. Fortifications have potential though, in my opinion, and could make land creature decks somewhat more of a thing.
July 24, 2016 3:54 a.m.
ClockworkSwordfish says... #9
I knew I couldn't be the only one who thought introducing both "fusion monsters" and "tribute monsters" in the same set was a little fishy. At least they didn't print any more Trap cards in Eldritch Moon....
July 24, 2016 4:50 a.m.
I'm just waiting for that random EXODIA card to appear.And yes, caps are a must when spelling EXODIA, it's the way of the world.
July 24, 2016 5:11 a.m.
MTG has a lot of design space here, it's just to bad that the card they chose to showcase that design space is a horrible card. Another thing about Darksteel Garrison is it has the sub-type "Fortification". I really believe that enchantments should also gain the fortify subtype and ability.
I know we all think of "Fortifications" to mean walls, ramparts, barricades etc. But "Fortify" means to make stronger or more robust. I would think mages would get in on that to. And I would also think that some mages in the MTG universe are capable of setting up powerful magics and then having their magic just exert it's influence over an area without the need for the mage to be there.
July 24, 2016 5:11 a.m.
wouldn't the mages fortifying just be the level up mechanic? Unless you didn't mean fortifying themselves
July 24, 2016 6:01 a.m.
Hmm, what if, perhaps, they went the artificer route and had creatures that could generate fortification tokens? The tokens can then be attached to lands for their Fortify cost and give the lands special abilities. That actually sounds like a lot of fun.
July 24, 2016 6:10 a.m.
Saturnity & ClockworkSwordfish, Meld isn't that bad a mechanic as it does something awesome and the frontsides are all playable cards. Also, Meld came from BFM, a card in one of the Unsets. And even if they borrow elements from other cardgames, it's not bad. Emerge felt awesome and Meld even more if you get to do it
July 24, 2016 9:26 a.m.
It doesnt matter if you like meld or not or if I like fotifications or not its whether they have enough design space. Meld can reach ANY permanent and when you do it it creates something game breaking and powerful. Adding random crap to your lands doesnt do anything and its restricted to adding it to your lands. Unless they made them over powered they wouldnt do enough for anyone to play them, except for in limited.
July 24, 2016 9:46 a.m.
I'm not saying that I dislike meld, I'm saying that it doesn't suit MTG very well. Just about any meld is pretty much a two-for-one that only effects yourself. Think about it, both Gisela, the Broken Blade and Bruna, the Fading Light are decent creatures on their own, and Brisela, Voice of Nightmares is incredibly powerful, if you can pull out the combo.
But that's the problem, the only chance anyone is going to have OF pulling it off, is by building an entire deck around the combo. Even then, you're basically praying that there is no form of removal or control whatsoever before melding, and if they do have the removal, you lose one of the cards and are sitting on an "okay creature". It's even worse if they can remove it after the meld. On top of that, meld creatures are a large mana sink, so it's more like a three-for-one, in that you're losing two creatures AND the mana spent to cast them.
The one upside to Brisela is the protection it gives itself after the meld, but that's not going to be available on every meld card, and it won't mean anything if one piece of the combo disappears before it hits, which is extremely likely.
All-in-all, the mechanic is just too clunky and gimmicky, and could have been designed to be more efficient.
With Fortifications, you have a versatile mechanic that can activate whenever the attached land is tapped, which could set up for some really intense combos or simply providing the necessary boost to your creatures or lands. If the land is destroyed, the fortification acts like an equipment and is unattached while remaining in play. You're not going to lose two cards to one, and land hate generally rests in the sideboard anyway, while creature hate is much more prevalent mainboard.
July 24, 2016 1:12 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #17
EmblemMan, what about equipment? I doubt that anyone imagined that they would become such a major part of the game when they were first introduced, but they have expanded into a very vast design space and are now included in virtually every set, so I see no reason why the same phenomenon could not happen with fortifications.
Saturnity, I agree completely, and would like to add that any ability that an aura could provide to a land could also be provided by a fortification, without the risk of losing the aura if the land were to leave the battlefield.
July 24, 2016 2:50 p.m.
I mean honestly yeah they include them but not many people play them but also at the same time they equip on creatures which are the backbone of magic so there is more design space and allows them to make good and bad ones not just completely unplayable or broken.
July 24, 2016 2:57 p.m.
DemonDragonJ Maro stated that equipment basicaly became evergreen the second Mirrodin came out.
Saturnity, so because, in your eyes, they seem bad and almost unplayable in tournaments, then they shouldn't exist? That sounds idiotic and really shortsighted. Not every card is made for you, let others have their fun. Don't like it? don't play it!Also, how is any part of the meld cards an 'ok' creature? The only Okay creature is Graf Rats and that is still playable as a 2/1 for 2.
Fortifications would be either a hit or miss as they will be weak as fuck or overpowered. Equipment help you toughen up your creatures or make them more usefull. Fortifications on the other hand would do either little or way much in terms of boardstate
July 25, 2016 7:32 a.m.
i think saturnity has it right here... What about a fortification that whenever that land was tapped untap each nonland permanent and basic land you control ... or what about one that has ; sacrifice the land this fortification enchants ; exile target land or whenever this land is tapped, return target artifact or enchantment to its owner's hand... fortifications would be way better than meld, emerge , mega morph, detain etc.
July 25, 2016 7:53 a.m.
Can you point out to me at any point that I mentioned "tournament" in my posts, because unless you can quote me saying that, it didn't happen, and I don't appreciate having "words put in my mouth" by other people, so to speak.
I never once argued to the practicality of meld in a tournament setting, and I never said it was bad, only that it was designed in a very clunky and inefficient manner that doesn't suit magic very well. Honestly? It's a very cool concept that you can take two decent creatures and turn them into something super powerful, but you also have to think of the meta when creating mechanics like this. You are going down one creature in an environment that's already rife with heavy creature removal. The design doesn't really function too well in sealed either since there's a small chance that you can pull both parts of the card in each pack.
A fortification, on the other hand, is one card. If you play it, and it's destroyed, you lose that one card. Even if it's the land that's destroyed, the fortification stays behind. That has a TON of potential, especially when lands are literally the backbone of the game, in all decks except manaless dredge.
July 25, 2016 11:25 a.m.
Named_Tawyny says... #22
h20, the three abilities you suggested are exactly why fortifications are going to be tough - they'll be either unplayable or completely bonkers.
(for the record, the first one you suggested gives you instant unlimited mana and pseudo vigilance, the second is a Dust Bowl, and the third is just game breaking.
July 25, 2016 9:08 p.m.
@ maiden77 - Sorry I didn't explain well enough. Here's what I was thinking for "Fortify".
- Can be on Enchantment or Artifact cards.
- Fortify is like "Equip" but for lands.
Example Artifact "Fortify": Making a land spit out 1/1 soldiers when you tap it. Sort of like how Underworld Connections goes on lands but the artifact versions don't do "mage things" with the exception of slight bends when it comes to artifacts. Instead they would let you spit out soldiers, make all equipments provide an additional +1/+1 or other benefit, or make artifacts function better. (Think Rings of Brighthearth or Strionic Resonator effects.)
For the mage versions you would have something that "fortifies" your land, again like Underworld Cs, but that would have effects that are really strong like Cavern of Souls, turn a land into a Cabal Coffers, turn a land into a semi-Karakas/Bounce for your own creatures (if you pay mana each time of course), give a land the effect of Dualcaster Mage etc.
The idea is in standard most people don't like to play LD cards that cost 
or 
but still lands are so powerful that not having all of the best lands cripples you. Not only are the lands very strong themselves, but they give you an effect that you don't lose hand advantage for. Moving more of these kinds of effects to the "fortify" mechanic means a user has to give up hand size for something stupid strong. Since people don't usually play those land destruction spells your chances of getting 2-for-1'd are low.
The whole strategy falls apart though if they keep printing OP stuff like Kolaghan's Command and Dromoka's Command.
July 26, 2016 8:17 a.m.
Well, I think unplayable is a bit harsh. Any card is generally playable, at the very least in the limited setting, unless we're talking Scornful Egotist levels of unplayability. There could be a lot of practical applications of fortifications, whether it's to protect a particular land you don't want to lose, or to increase the versatility of your manabase. It doesn't HAVE to be something terrible or overpowered. I think what will really end up defining that disparity won't be the abilities, but the casting and fortify costs.
July 27, 2016 1:11 a.m.
DERPLINGSUPREME says... #26
Scornful Egotist has a variety of uses within his block because things mattered based on the highest cmc you had...
at least he knows what he's doing.
July 27, 2016 1:14 a.m. Edited.
Of course, it was merely example. Every card has some semblance of utility, including the GREAT LORD EGOTIST. Ahh, the Gatherer discussion for that card is by far my favorite out of any.
kingofcramers says... #2
Future Sight was filled with ideas and concepts that WotC could choose to take further or abandon (as the name suggests). Some ideas, like enchantment creatures, eventually were taken up again years later in Theros, but a lot like fortifications or Steamflogger Boss just never ended up panning out. Maybe someday, but I don't think Wizards feels any need to flush out all the mechanics they experimented with. Btw future sight is my favorite set.
July 24, 2016 1 a.m.