How Do You Feel About Copying Permanent Spells?
General forum
Posted on March 24, 2024, 8:13 a.m. by DemonDragonJ
For years, only instant and sorcery spells could be copied, but permanents could be copied after they entered the battlefield, but, recently, WotC has been allowing permanent spells to be copied, which is dislike, since I fail to see what need there was for allowing that, since the previous method seemed to work perfectly well, in my mind.
What does everyone else say about this? Why is WotC now allowing copying of permanents while they are spells on the stack, and how do you feel about that change in philosophy?
wallisface says... #3
It’s the nature of a ling-lived and ever-evolving game to keep trying new things. Them adding cards with this effect was inevitable. It’s also fairly non-impactful imo… this doesn’t feel like an issue to get worked-up about (at least in my view).
It feels (based off your numerous threads) a lot like you have distain for anything new Wotc does with card design. I think this issue is something you should probably work to overcome - because Wotc are going to keep adding new features to the game and pushing the boundary on mechanics (it’s a 30 year old game that thrives on feeling “new” and “fresh”).
March 24, 2024 2:29 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #4
wallisface, I like some new things, such as new mechanics or using existing mechanics in new ways, and vehicles were rather interesting, as well, but there are some things that I feel were completely unnecessary, such as the new symbol for colorless mana, battles as a new cad type, or double-faced cards.
Why is it necessary to add new things to a game? Always trying to impress players with something shiny and new is not the best strategy in my mind: do you remember the conversation in Jurassic World between Owen Grady and Claire Dearing?
March 24, 2024 3:57 p.m.
wallisface says... #5
DemonDragonJ it’s necessary to keep adding new things to the game for them to remain a competitive and attractive product. If the game feels ”stale” then people playing it lose interest and move to other hobbies. Likewise, a product perceived as stale creates a lot-less hype to bring new people into the game.
Colourless mana symbols were needed for the Eldrazi set that explicitly cared about colourless mana being used to pay for costs (it also helped differentiate producing colourless mana vs paying for mana costs with generic mana - something many people were misunderstanding because the number-symbols were the same).
Battles and double-faced cards were both wildly popular and helped grow the game.
March 24, 2024 4:18 p.m.
I mean, this seems like exactly the place to ask people if they think a new mechanic is healthy for the game. Most of us on here, if not all, are way more invested in magic than the majority of players, but if you ask me what a battle does or how a siege works or what's the deal with stickers, or what's the effect of For Mirrodin! or compleated, I'd have to look them all up, so I feel very much that the conversation on mechanics is a good one to have.
I doubt these topics are ever meant as serious advice to Wizards or anything, they're really just asking "How do you feel about something" and you can't ever fault anybody for asking that : )
March 24, 2024 4:21 p.m.
wallisface says... #7
Niko9 yeah this is a very fair point. I guess some of these threads feel very nit-picky to me, when there’s so much more obvious egregious/controversial things the company is doing. But i guess different people have different priorities on what irks them.
For me personally, this just feels like such a non-issue, that it’s surprising me that it’s even a topic of discussion.
March 24, 2024 4:31 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #8
wallisface, I asked because there seems to be no clear benefit to copying a permanent spell on the stack compared to copying a permanent that is already on the battlefield. Why did you believe that it was "inevitable" that this ability would eventually become a reality, in this game?
March 24, 2024 10:36 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #9
wallisface, also, that is the exact reason for which I dislike the new symbol for colorless mana, because it forces me to say "generic mana," which I severely dislike doing, as I previously could say "colorless mana" in such situations.
Also, being able to product only colorless mana was supposed to be a drawback for lands and artifacts, but WotC changed it into a strength, which forced the commander rules committee to eliminate a rule from the format, a rule that I felt was very crucial to that format.
March 24, 2024 10:44 p.m.
wallisface says... #10
DemonDragonJ I believed it would become inevitable because Wotc are constantly trying to refine how they word effects on cards - and this adjustment can allow them to batch effects in a way that is easier/quicker to read. It also broadens their design arsenal, as spells are timing restrictive (comparable to a permanent) there’s new levels of interactions and play patterns to be explored.
The differences between the two:
-
copying a permanent on the battlefield has a huge inherent risk/drawback in that the permanent can be removed in response and now your copy effect does nothing. It’s a bit harder to mess with a permanent spell on the stack.
-
copying a spell on the stack requires having the mana available to get a permanent spell onto the stack to begin with. This allows for cheaper-costed copy effects to account for this.
Also not to derail the current thread, but if you were previously saying "colourless mana" instead of “generic”, you were using the wrong vocabulary - and this is something Wotc tried to improve/make-obvious when they introduced the colourless symbol, because this was something a LOT of people were misunderstanding and getting wrong.
March 24, 2024 11:41 p.m.
SteelSentry says... #11
As someone who has a Magus Lucea Kane deck, it does have some upsides over normal copying, like copying the as well for abilities like Ravenous. That being said, it is a bit of a pain to track in paper. I have a problem with mechanics like that which are clearly designed for digital; Suspect immediately comes to mind. However, an expensive copy spell is much less feel bad than an expensive Clone that is vulnerable to removal, and outside that I can go either way on them. I didn't think this was a design space that could really be contentious.
March 25, 2024 12:01 a.m.
plakjekaas says... #12
DemonDragonJ weren't you the one who absolutely had to see Squad in a Standard set? How do you rhyme that with disliking copying permanents?
March 25, 2024 5:47 a.m.
wallisface says... #13
plakjekaas their complaint is just about copying permanent spells - which isn’t something Squad does (it copies the permanent on etb). I do agree it fits into a bit of a grey area for this topic though.
March 25, 2024 5:57 p.m. Edited.
DemonDragonJ says... #14
plakjekaas, I am very fond of copying permanents, I simply feel that it makes more sense to copy them after they have entered the battlefield, not while they are still on the stack.
wallisface, all of that makes perfect sense, so I definitely do not need to debate it, any further, but, on a different subject, what niche did battles fill? Why were they even necessary, especially after thirty years? They seem to be halfway between enchantments and planeswalkers, so I fail to see why anyone wanted them.
Also, I do not wish to be annoying or quibbling, but I am male, so you may use male pronouns when referring to me; I am sorry for derailing the discussion, but I wished to clarify that.
March 25, 2024 8:15 p.m.
SteelSentry says... #15
I'm not very interested in Sieges, as they're basically just spells that make your opponent gain life, which makes sense that they're almost unplayable in constructed. They were fun in draft, though. What worries me is that Wizards often sees one success and proceeds to overfeed the idea, or one failure and throws the idea out entirely; which would be a shame, because I'm interested in what they do with battles you play on your own side of the field.
I'd put them somewhere in the area of Cartouches and Fortifications in terms of card type; Not against them returning but not exactly asking for them, either.
March 25, 2024 8:54 p.m.
wallisface says... #16
DemonDragonJ all good dude - I don’t make a habit of assuming anyone’s gender till it’s been made clear - as it’s generally way more offensive to get something super-wrong than to be non-specific.
After 30 years the game is going to inevitably be wanting to expand into new territory, and Battles help them as far as creating a new card type and a new way to play the game. Whether they’re popular enough to see more printings is something we’ll have to wait and see with - but Wotc has made a lot of new card types recently which’ve done well and crossed multiple sets (vehicles, sagas), and I expect them to keep experimenting with new game pieces and ways to play. Personally I think battles can help emphasise more of a “creatures matter” dynamic, but at the moment they feel quite underpowered (i suspect this to change if we get another set with battles).
March 25, 2024 9:37 p.m.
Battles are in kind of a weird spot at this point. Battles have shown up in one set, and they all have the same subtype. While that does make it easy to predict that more battles will show up in the future, it makes it hard to guess what they'll look like. Also, I would say they're the most flavor-restricted card type. Any plane that has a physical location will have lands. Planes with some form of biological (or abiological, theoretically--Elemental world?) activity will have creatures. Any plane that has magic, or tactics, or anything that happens will have instants, sorceries, and enchantments, and any plane that has manufactured goods will have artifacts. Planeswalkers show up wherever they want. Not every plane will have battles.
Military conflict is a core part of the game, but some planes and stories aren't as conflict-centric as others. Aside from weird events like the Battle of the Bridge or the Decamillennial, I don't see Kaladesh or Ravnica having many domestic large-scale battles (and the Battle of the Bridge arguably wasn't domestic), and I'm not sure what a Lorwyn battle would be like. A Cenn's Tactician gets antsy and decides the flamekin are being too rambunctious? Elves unite and make a determined assault against eyeblights?
On the production side, the developers are being very careful, testing the waters and seeing what the reaction is. If they wanted feedback before creating any more, and they started to receive mass feedback in the last couple months, it's going to be another 3-4 years before we see another set with battles.
So battles are in kind of an amorphous state right now. One variety has been seen that suggests more will come, no information on what other varieties could look like has been provided, they're not appropriate for all sets or locations, and it's possible there aren't any battles in production at all right now.
Were they necessary in the strictest sense? Honestly, I don't think so. The game could probably continue indefinitely without them, and I don't think anyone specifically requested or expected a new card type before Atraxa, Grand Unifier was previewed. They do, however, represent new innovation and variety. Successful experiments become standards, and unsuccessful experiments become lessons. I think battles are going to finish as successful experiments, but it's going to take several analyses to fully get there. If my eyeballed production timeline is right, I don't expect to see more than two or three more sets with battles before 2030. After that, either they'll start coming in full force or they'll be shelved as a weird footnote.
March 26, 2024 1:46 a.m.
plakjekaas says... #18
legendofa I disagree with your assessment of why and where battles could exist. A challenge duel to become chief could be a battle. Boros legion suppressing a riot in the Undercity could be a battle. Conflict is omnipresent among living creature, and any physical violence could be expressed by a battle of sorts. That's how different subtypes would origin, I suppose, we could get a Battle - Duel or a Battle - Riot instead of all the Battle - Siege we've seen so far. But everywhere where's fighting, has a potential for a battle to take place, and to turn into a card. They seem marvelous for story highlights I suppose.
March 26, 2024 12:32 p.m.
plakjekaas That's possible. But to me, Battle - Duel or Battle - Riot or Battle - Skirmish or whatever seem more like instants or sorceries, or maybe enchantments. Alpha Brawl, Spectacular Showdown, Massive Raid, these all share that flavor space (and I wish I could come up with some non-red examples off the top of my head). All of these could potentially be reprinted as story spotlights in some future set, like Renewed Faith from Onslaught to Amonkhet.
Conflict is everywhere in a game about conflict, and I'm sure I'm thinking too small, and biased by what we have now instead of what could be coming in the future. Looking at current story spotlight cards, some that I would consider as flavorfully battles are Battle at the Bridge, Battle for Bretagard (these even have Battle in the name), Eiganjo Uprising, Hostile Takeover, Hour of Glory, Mage Hunters' Onslaught, Rampage of the Clans, Storm the Citadel, and The Fall of Kroog. These can easily be thematically redesigned as battle cards.
So I'm not saying you're wrong, but those types of events just don't fit my current mental picture of a battle. That's why I said battles probably aren't a strictly necessary addition to the game--they're mechanically new and interesting, but what flavor space can they carve out for themselves? Or will they simply take over this flavor space, and we're going to see less major-combat-themed cards of other types?
March 26, 2024 2:18 p.m.
ETB then copies a nonland permanent? I don’t think I’ve seen those myself. If they exist I’d like to see because I still use Cackling Counterpart and that other Sorcery? It’s from Ravnica Allegiance I think.
Niko9 says... #2
I haven't seen it played too much but I could see it being overtuned in EDH depending on what cmc they give to this effect. Because players have knowledge of their opponent's commanders they can just wait until someone casts the right one, and if there happens to be a better target before that, then sure hit that. Kind of reminds me of when players used to use tuck effects and just wait for that one player to cast their commander and then tuck it into the deck. Not exactly the same, but a similar idea where if you open with the copy card you can look for the optimal play and just wait for it.
If it's like 4 mana, more or less like clone effects, then maybe it's not too bad. If it's 2-3, then kinda busted.
March 24, 2024 12:54 p.m.