So, why are Battles even a thing?
General forum
Posted on Oct. 29, 2023, 2:39 a.m. by TypicalTimmy
I understand I can often times come off aggressive in my comments. However I'm not meaning to with this one.
I am genuinely curious, and equally baffled.
What purpose do Battles serve? What niche did they fill that justifies them being made?
Okay, so I get it... basically it's an Enchantment but with toughness. An Enchantment that can be killed. And as of right now, they become something else when they die. Cool.
But, why not just make it an Enchantment with some new mechanic? You know, sort of like Sagas.
I sort of feel like a Battle would work just as well if it were called an Enchantment, and some new type of counter were put on it for its toughness or life total or hit points or whatever you want to call it.
- I recognize using the word "toughness" implies it being a creature. After all, it isn't a Planeswalker's toughness our opponent tries to knock down, but their Loyalty. So while it is simple to wave a hand at the idea of semantics, in actuality there does need to be a distinction. I'm just unsure of what that distinction would be.
The point is, whatever type of counter it would be, couldn't it have just as easily gone onto an "Enchantment - Battle" and WOTC calls it good?
So... again I kindly ask you, what purpose do Battles actually serve?
wallisface says... #3
Some reasons:
-
new card types catch peoples attention and likely help sales.
-
it not being an enchant makes it harder to remove, in that all the destroy-enchant spells/effects can’t touch it.
-
Conversely, if it were an enchantment, then it creates a lot more confusion with other targeting. I.e, can I bolt it? And if so, what’s stopping me from trying to bolt any enchantment.
-
from the above point, we can see that having a distinct card type for this allows it to free itself from some confusing baggage it would have/create otherwise.
-
they want battles to be more than just Sieges down the line (and each additional battle type having its own rules text), as this happens it will become more evident why this being its own thing is a positive. We already have a few different distinct enchantment types (sagas, auras) and they likely don’t want to muddy those waters further.
October 29, 2023 4:40 a.m.
FormOverFunction says... #4
I see them as being less of a modification of enchantments, and more of a modification of planeswalkers. Planeswalkers were a huge hit for a long time, and I think we COULD see something similar with a slow rollout of them the way we used to see with PWs. There’s a lot of gold to mine in those hills....
October 29, 2023 12:28 p.m.
I second everything in wallisface's list. I would also add the fact that creating a new card type creates far more simplicity in the rules than a special type of Enchantment would.
As things currently stand, Battles can be their own major category of rule--Rule 310. The many rules related to battles can use decimal points (ex. 310.1) and letters if necessary if additional subrules are needed (ex. 310.8g).
This also means you can do subtypes really easily--the subtype gets a decimal point (ex. 310.11 Siege) and then the rules for that subtype get letters (310.11a-b govern sieges).
This does not work as cleanly for enchantments--everything has to be indented further. Battles would no longer be their own 310 rule--their base category would be Rule 303.8. This makes subtypes something like 303.8k, and then you would need another level of classification beyond that (which I do not think the rules even allow).
Furthermore, it is far easier on the player to make a clean rule--"you can only attack players or cards with the type Battle or Planeswalker" is far simpler from a game design stance than "you can only attack players or cards with the Planeswalker type, or certain types of Enchantment, but not other types of enchantment."
So, from a pure game design and rules standpoint, the best way to accomplish what battles do is through creation of a new card type.
October 29, 2023 3:31 p.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #6
Oh, okay I get it now.
So in terms of rules, mechanics, functions, interactions it all makes more sense to basically just have a clean slate and build up what they want and / or need, rather than having to layer rules upon rules over other stuff.
I'm not sure if Battles sparked the same intrigue that Planeswalkers did, but then again I was not playing when Planeswalkers were introduced so I have no historical knowledge to fall back on.
I'm still curious as to what extent a Battle can shape the game, moving forward. Although I suppose we all just have to wait and see what other subtypes will inevitably be released.
I don't believe Battles were a failure or a missed play; Truly I am indifferent. I attempted to build a deck, or slot some in preexisting ideas, but like with many mechanics there's just too few good ones to really consider at this point. It boils down to what you are removing, and are you adding value or not.
One benefit I could potentially see is there is far less interaction in terms of spells or abilities that specifically mention Battle, such as "Destroy target Battle" or "Battles cost more to cast"
But, like a Planeswalker, damage is easy enough to hammer through.
I wonder when the next set of Battles will be released?
And I'm certain eventually we will see a slew of Precons that each have some Battles, or even a Commander that is focused around them. That would be an interesting design, to say the least.
Like Superfriends, but for Battles.
I wonder what that archetype will look like and eventually be called.
I guess I'm excited for a new card type, just skeptical on how it may be implemented moving forward.
Thanks everyone for the concise replies :)
October 29, 2023 5:18 p.m.
FormOverFunction says... #7
I think there’s a pretty significant chance that battles will be back, with bigger effects AND more battle-related cards that will make them more dynamic (without complicating them at the same time). Most of you know how I don’t really care for planeswalkers, and might expect me to feel the same way about battles, but I’m strangely optimistic on the topic of battles. They’re really strong on the theme-end of things (ignoring the problem of “this is a thing that happened once, and now you’re conjuring... a copy of it..?) and have a LOT of room to grow, so it’ll actually be interesting to me too see where they go.
October 29, 2023 8:50 p.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #8
Maybe it's silly but I wish Battles were legendary. It's a tad strange to have out like two Invasion of Tarkir Flip.
I feel like they should be how Planeswalkers are now; You can have multiple of the same "type" but must have different names. For example, Battle for Bala Ged and Battle for Valakut both of which are on Zendikar (Right?)
For example, it's not as though there were six different Battle of Waterloo's...
October 29, 2023 11 p.m. Edited.
I'm interested in battles, but they just don't have any real support right now. That's not a bad thing, the designers have stated many times they wanted to be cautious and not make too big of a splash. Unfortunately, that also means that right now they're utility pieces, not a core build-around strategy, and I always find myself cutting them in the final refinement.
What would a battle support card look like? "If damage would be dealt to a battle you're protecting, prevent 1 of that damage." With Sieges being the only point of reference right now, it's hard to guess what might be coming down the pipeline and how they're going to develop. Right now, the biggest point of variation appear to be who can defend it and what happens when it's defeated.
October 30, 2023 2:35 a.m.
plakjekaas says... #10
Battles add an additional dimension to combat math. You can either attack your opponent, typically to advance in winning the game, you can attack your opponent's planeswalkers, to stunt them in the development of their game plan, and you can attack your own battles, for a bonus on your boardstate without necessarily ending the game faster.
As an innate aggro/tempo player I dislike the concept of watering down my damage output for possible future advantages, although that's what I thought when the set was spoiled and battles were introduced as card types. After playing with Invasion of Gobakhan Flip for 6 months though, I can appreciate the depth it offers, even just as support cards for established strategies.
Choosing to not attack your opponent is not very intuitive for the unexperienced player though, I think it's a good thing to use these types sparingly, just as planeswalkers were intended. I don't think you should want to typally build around this type of card, a deck that can defeat multiple battles in a game is a deck that can beat the opponent down to zero life.
I do like that they don't work advantageously with Proliferate. They really are kind of anti-planeswalkers, at least mechanically.
October 31, 2023 6:02 a.m.
Wizards feels compelled to add at least one new mechanic for every set they release.
Eventually they are going to run out of ways to do that.
I think this was how Battles were born.
I thought they were silly at the time, and expected them to largely fall out of use.
I do notice that the Doctor Who set brought some mechanics back, like Mentor and Horsie Time.
I don’t think it uses Battles, though.
October 31, 2023 8:08 a.m.
I personally like battles a lot, but I guess it was probably just a marketing decision, and a way to reintroduce old planes to use in future sets, because I don't know about you, but Invasion of Lorwyn Flip got me hype for a possible new Lorwyn set.
October 31, 2023 10:06 a.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #13
I severely dislike battles, and wish that WotC had not created them, since there was no need for a new card type, especially not thirty years into the game.
darkmus says... #2
New card types are better for marketing
October 29, 2023 4:24 a.m.