New Card Type: Battle
Spoilers, Rumors, and Speculation forum
Posted on March 28, 2023, 11:55 a.m. by Icbrgr
So what does eveyone think about this design space? To me it feels like War of the spark planswalkers that only had Minus abilities... Im assuming there will be other ways to interact with this cars type for colors or decks that dont typically have many creatures... kinda like Heoric or somting where you just target it with "any target" spells or something.
Here is a courtesy link to a video description.
yeah it kinda depends if that 3 means toughness... or how many times it is attacked? .... there are still some unknowns here for all of us... I will say that I do like the allure for players to use creatures and use the combat phase... ascetically i hate transforming cards (pain in the butt for playing in paper IMO)
March 28, 2023 12:37 p.m.
I am not super fond of minigames within Magic--be they initiative, attractions, contraptions, etc.--so these are already starting out as a bit of a miss for me.
My biggest concern--the one Battle we have seen thus far indicates there will be different minigames to play with depending on the Battle Subtype. That is going to add an additional layer of confusion and complexity on top of the existing minigame element of Battle cards. We'll see how things play out with them--certainly curious to see how others operate.
March 28, 2023 12:54 p.m.
Biggest question for me right now is, does destroying count as defeating? What happens if I Assassin's Trophy this thing?
I know that questions will be answered in the near future, but if I'm expected to use them or face them, I want to know what happens when it goes away.
"Destroy target Battle." That'll be a fun line of text.
March 28, 2023 2:49 p.m.
@legendofa lol definitly a fun line of text :p
kinda like Assassin's Trophy im assuming it would fall under "nonland permanant" or "any target" effects currently but we will see... curious about the "defeat clause" too now.
March 28, 2023 3:32 p.m.
Tarmogoyf needed a buff, so I think this is a good addition to the game.
March 28, 2023 3:58 p.m.
Coward_Token says... #8
On the subject of removal: Who knows if it's even a permanent type, it could just be placed in exile/the command zone.
March 28, 2023 5:11 p.m.
Coward_Token says... #9
Oh and for clarity's sake, here's the original source: https://press-start.com.au/news/2023/03/29/mtg-march-of-the-machine-preview/
March 28, 2023 5:19 p.m.
Coward_Token They wouldn't make the command zone an official part of Legacy/Vintage, or have cards affecting the game from exile, would they? Or, they might...
March 28, 2023 5:21 p.m.
Coward_Token says... #11
You already place Dungeons into the command zone when you go into them
But never mind, Invasion of Zendikar actually says "enters the battlefield" so it's likely a permanent.
March 28, 2023 5:49 p.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #12
I have a feeling defeat is going to fall into the same idea as "dies" vs "destroyed" vs "sacrificed" vs "removed due to state based actions for having 0 or less toughness".
At the end of the day, all permanents that leave the battlefield (specifically) and move directly to the graveyard (specifically) have the condition "died".
So yes, a creature who has indestructible who was sacrificed did in fact die, but it was not destroyed.
I feel like "defeated" will specifically care about it's... "life total?" being reduced to 0 by the specific requirement.
As an example, maybe you have a spell that says you deal 3 damage to each target. Well technically Battle is a target. So you deal 3 noncombat damage to it. Now it's at {0} and dies.
Was it defeated? Likely not, if the requirement to defeat it was combat damage and you dealt noncombat.
This, if that assessment is accurate, could be insanely confusing for new players.
I hope I'm wrong.
March 28, 2023 10:04 p.m.
March 28, 2023 10:48 p.m.
Squee_Spirit_Guide says... #14
This might just be me (it probably is), but all I can think about is how this would have been worded if it was released in the 90s... Can you imagine how wonderfully weird the wording would be and how small the print would be to fit in the text box?
The lack of clarity around battles at the moment makes it feel like the old days when the function of some cards was up for debate (at least around the kitchen table).
I think I'm somehow getting nostalgic over a card that hasn't been released yet... Oh well, thanks for indulging me!
March 28, 2023 10:52 p.m.
wallisface says... #15
Something interesting to note about this new design space - with presumably all Battles being double-faced cards, they can't practically appear in every set (Wotc/Rosewater have made is pretty clear that they need to commit pretty heavily to including a lot of double-faced cards in a set to justify having any at all). With this in mind, it could be that we don't see any additional new battle cards for years after this sets release - and that they just crop up very rarely in sets actively theming around them.
March 29, 2023 1:28 a.m.
wallisface Aside from the double-face mechanics, I can't see Battles figuring heavily into something like a return to Lorwyn or Kaladesh, one of the more peaceful planes, without seriously disrupting the philosophy of that plane. Everywhere's going to have some sort of conflict, but not on this scale.
March 29, 2023 2:12 a.m.
@legendofa: Remember when Call of the Herd and Morphling were some of the best creatures in the game?
@Coward_Token: And emblems! Non-EDH Magic has been using the command zone for quite a while now.
March 29, 2023 3:56 a.m.
Currently I think I am just along for the ride like most of us.... I'm not super for or against the new card type existing... unless a more pushed version comes along (which is inevitable IMO) the new card type just seems slow and unnecessary... kinda like basically every Gideon Jura planswalker ever made lol (style points and unique sure but doesn't seem very spikey)... but that doesn't mean it cant be fun to play with or build a deck around (in a suitable play environment)... I could see a battle in the future being an alternate win condition with "higher toughness" that flips to results in winning the game or an effect that virtually wins the game if the card type functions the way it appears to function.
March 29, 2023 7:58 a.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #19
Skip to the 5 minute mark on this video that WOTC just released, explaining Battle cards.
So when I cast Invasion of Zendikar, I let legendofa defend it. But apparently I still control it, according to the video, despite it being on his side of the battlefield? And despite that I still control it, I am also allowed to attack it with my creatures... That I also control?
The Magic Historian made a good point that flavorfully it makes no sense.
I spend my mana, to summon my spells. The spell I summon is an invasion of another world.
Then it is up to me, to stop the invasion... that I summoned?
And then I am rewarded when I successfully stop... My own invasion???
These cards are dumb.
March 29, 2023 12:36 p.m.
maybe its like your the one invading/battling (like how the phyrexians are opening portals and invading in march of the machines) ... so you would attack it with your own creatures its up to the opponent to stop your invasion/battle by blocking/defending?..... thats how i understood it anyway.
March 29, 2023 12:53 p.m. Edited.
like in the case of zendikar... if the phrexians/opponent succeeds in defeating zendikar they get this 4/4 creature land... so it encourages the opponent to not just let zendikar fall and become aborbed by the opponent?
like a reason to care other places or things are being attacked and not just say "let zendikar burn because it doesnt affect me."
March 29, 2023 12:59 p.m. Edited.
I did at least make the inference that destroy effect don't trigger the defeat effect; that has to be done through damage. But yeah, the flavor is backwards, or inverted, or something.
And the video didn't mention anything about blocking for the Battle... I've been assuming the protector-opponent can block normally, and I really hope that's right.
March 29, 2023 1:36 p.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #23
I wonder if we (me) are looking at the lore a little sideways.
Maybe what's happening is this.
I spend mana, in the case of Invasion of Zendikar, . The invasion happens, and I get some lands to assist me.
Now, in terms of Vorthos, my opponent is the invader. He or she is the one "in control" of the invasion. You know, despite not controlling the physical permanent?
Anyway, now that the invasion is underway, my goal is to stop it. Which means my opponents goal is to protect, defend and bolster the invasion.
Essentially, I am forcing my opponent into a situation where they must spread their resources thin, because they actively WANT the invasion to be sustained. If the invasion fails and is defeated, I get a 4/4 Elemental. Or a Planeswalker. Or an artifact. Or a big sorcery. Whatever the reverse side happens to be.
So it is within my opponents best interest to throw bodies in front of the oncoming damage, or to use spells and abilities to protect it.
I guess the problem I have is that it is strictly upside for me, and strictly downside for them. And that's fine, but that could have been accomplished with a Saga that transforms. Or you know, I just cast a 4/4 Elemental with trample and haste and cut the middle-man cat-and-mouse game out entirely.
It essentially overly complicates an already incredibly complicated game. Because now if I load my deck full of 2-drop Invasion spells, I flood their boardstate with nonsense they must defend and protect.
Then again, if I can sling 12 damage out to kill a bunch of Invasions, I could have just dealt it to them directly. Therefore it just makes the game longer and more clunky.
I understand a lot of these same arguments apply toward Planeswalkers, Sagas and some other cards but the difference I would suggest is that these are all permanents I am responsible for and must manage and protect myself. I sustain all of the upside, and downside.
With these, I force an opponent to protect it, exhausting their resources, while I reap all of the rewards.
That isn't exactly the same thing, and needs to be addressed appropriately. Furthermore, the Invasion that my opponent is protecting and defending literally gives them no benefit. If the Battle card ETB under their control, again in the case of Invasion of Zendikar, my opponent would get two lands.
That's a big deal. That's a massive deal. Oh my God is that a horrendous deal.
Then when I defeat it, I should be able to get the Elemental and maybe destroy a land or something. Offset it a bit. Or a really big 8/7 Elemental or something insane.
Instead, I get 2 lands. I get to thin their resources. I get to force them to upend their game. And, when they fail, I get a big creature.
That... idk, doesn't seem right? Balanced? Fair?
March 29, 2023 2:30 p.m.
As others have said, the flavor is certainly backwards. That part seems like kind of a miss honestly.
As for the mechanic itself, well, it's kind of convoluted. The "I control this but you have to defend it" aspect is just kind of awkward and I can absolutely see players getting confused about who gets on cast/ETB effect and who gets the effect when a battle is defeated.
It's probably too early to evaluate the power level until we see more of them and get to actually see them in action, but my gut says they will have the effect of slowing down limited since attacks might be re-routed to the battles instead of the opponent. My hunch is that pioneer, modern, legacy and vintage won't play them at all unless one of them is crazy powerful and can be flipped easily with a Lightning Bolt. In commander I think there will likely be some niche decks that use them. Some of them might be interesting in decks that can blink permanents. Invasion of Fiora would be a blinkable board-wipe in the right deck. That seems powerful.
March 29, 2023 2:34 p.m.
TypicalTimmy I think we might need to wait until they can actually be played to know for sure, but I agree that the design of the card type seems like it could end up slowing the game down. None of the flip-sides of the Battle's that have been spoiled so far look like anything crazily powerful that I'd really want to jump through all those hoops to get at, but it's still early, so maybe that changes. If there are a lot of uncommon battles I think the limited environment could end up very slow.
March 29, 2023 2:41 p.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #26
For me, it harkons back toward the Energy crisis from Kaladesh and Aether Revolt, where there was literally no downside to have them. Because there was no way to interact with energy counters, it was pure upside. Therefore, if you were playing at that time and DIDN'T run energy counters, you were at a strict disadvantage.
If you wanted a shot at winning, you were forced to play with them. This meant all decks had to become tailored to them.
I suspect this will turn out the same way. If I as the caster, owner and controller reap 100% of the benefits and 0% of the downsides, AND my opponent must exhaust their resources defending it, then there is literally no reason to not play them.
Not using them is a strictly poor choice. Which means, your opponent will also be using them.
Which means, I suspect that Standard will become saturated with almost mirror-matches of Battles being thrown down and games taking insanely long because, well, if you're NOT using them, you're losing.
It just seems... forced.
Again, I hope I'm wrong. I guess we'll see.
March 29, 2023 2:44 p.m.
Yeah. WotC was also thinking Tarmogoyf needed a buff, because this just straight-up allows you to go get it:
March 29, 2023 2:45 p.m.
wallisface says... #28
sylvannos i assume that card would be used to grab combo pieces rather than chonky creatures.
In any case, does anyone see these cards being played at-all outside of standard? In Modern you’re probably only playing it for the front-side - tempo/pacing is important enough that I don’t see people wasting time trying to flip these things.
March 29, 2023 3:05 p.m.
TypicalTimmy I will say that so far I'm a bit less worried about the power level in relation to getting them flipped. The fact that you still need to deal damage to the battle to get the flip card is a real hoop. So currently I don't know that I'm super worried about standard (though I don't play it, so I won't be the best judge there). These are mostly potentially ripe for abuse by blink/flicker decks that can target permanents though. Besides a boardwipe there is also a bad Anguished Unmaking and a reanimate effect.
March 29, 2023 3:11 p.m.
wallisface says... #30
I see a lot of comments saying that this puts the defender at a big disadvantage, and that the battle is all-upside, which i really don’t agree with.
The caster/attacker has to invest their own time and resources in making this thing flip. The defender is under no forced obligation to protect this thing.
Indeed, if the defender has a bugger board-state, then the caster/attacker can’t realistically ever get the back-side of their card.
Conversely, if the attacker has a bigger board-state, are they making the clock any faster by wasting time attacking a battle rather than the opponents face?
The card really feels “win more”, and that’s where i see it falling short outside of standard. I only really see these battles having some merit in super-grindy matchups.
March 29, 2023 3:13 p.m.
@wallisface with whats revealed so far i dont think seeing play for anything like pioneer or modern or legacy (although the creature tutor does seem to have potential at least) will happen at this point... however Lord of the rings is Modern legal and there is a possibility that this card type could be in a supplemental set like that or Modern horizons 3?
March 29, 2023 3:16 p.m. Edited.
TypicalTimmy says... #32
Invasion of Tarkir seems pretty dope though, not gonna lie. Although I am clearly speaking out from a bias perspective on that one.
Artwork makes it look as though Kolaghan was compleated. I assumed as much that he, Atarka or possibly even Dromoka would have been. Personally I think a compleated Dromoka would be pretty sweet.
March 29, 2023 3:42 p.m.
wallisface says... #33
Icbrgr from what we’ve seen from LotR so far it seems to be much, much weaker than a Modern-Horizons set, so i doubt we’ll get more than 5-6 cards with any relevancy for Modern - the set seems very focused on new players and Commander.
They may do battles there, though i’m not convinced there’s much likelihood of that actually happening.
————————
I notice Rosewater on blogatog mentioning that not all battles have to be double-faced. That might mean we do see battles more often in sets - just not these “Siege” ones in MoM.
March 29, 2023 3:43 p.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #34
Interesting, because in the video I posted earlier, at the 5:35 mark the host says "Each Battle is a transforming double-faced card. A Battle enters the battlefield front-face up (...)"
March 29, 2023 3:52 p.m.
What about non-Siege Battles? As far as I know, nothing's been revealed about them (aside from what wallisface referenced while I was writing this). The reminder text specifies "When a Siege enters the battlefield, choose an opponent to etc. you can cast it transformed."
Siege is set up as a subtype. I want to speculate a little. What else could be battle subtypes?
Clash: nobody defends it, whoever deals the final damage gets the reward. Probably has higher defense and better reward.
Duel: you have to deal a certain amount of damage in one shot. Moderate to high-ish defense (4-5), average reward.
March 29, 2023 3:55 p.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #36
So in the video, they only speak about Sieges and how they work. Truthfully, I wonder if Siege was tacked on so that future releases could add new subtypes.
Consider the following: If you make Battle cards without a subtype, and then later on make a new Battle card that doesn't act in the same way, you now must differentiate between the two. This means retconning all prior Battles with a subtype that they never had before.
If however you grant them that subtype now, it becomes a nonissue later on.
March 29, 2023 4:05 p.m.
wallisface says... #37
Yeah MOM only has Sieges, and that’s all they’ll be referencing in TypicalTimmy’s posted video.
We know nothing of other battle types yet other than Rosewaters comments hinting there will be more variations in future sets.
March 29, 2023 4:16 p.m.
multimedia says... #38
You can remove defense counters from a Battle other ways then doing combat damage to it. Any effect that removes counters from a permanent can trigger defeat by removing all counters from a Battle, Vampire Hexmage, Glissa Sunslayer, etc. This gives flexibility that you don't have to only attack your Battle to defeat it. This also makes Battles more prone to being abused, can be easier way to defeat the same turn it ETB as well as instant speed defeat outside of combat. To defeat a Battle in combination you could remove defense counters and do combat damage to it which can make defeating a Battle easier.
March 29, 2023 4:20 p.m. Edited.
multimedia I think there will absolutely be some battle-focused commander decks that are viable. By herself Glissa Sunslayer is probably legit as a tool for that. I think in that regard the main advantage of battles will be basically the 2 for 1 aspect. You're getting both the ETB as well as the flip-effect. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that in almost all cases those battle-focused commander decks won't actually attack the battles, but use tricks to remove counters from them... which kind of undercuts the theme.
I kind of doubt that tricking battles will translate well to other formats outside of maybe standard though.
March 29, 2023 5:12 p.m.
Coward_Token says... #40
March of the Machine Mechanics
Turns out regular burn spells and permanents like Keranos, God of Storms works too, and not just specifically counter-removal ones
March 29, 2023 7:21 p.m.
So as more battles have been spoiled I have a couple of thoughts:
-
There are enough uncommon battles that they will be a big factor in limited for sure. My guess is that they will end up slowing down the format because it's another place to direct your attacks to instead of killing someone.
-
I think that the thing that will make or break a battle is the ETB effect. The flip can be really powerful in some circumstances, but the ETB is going to determine if a battle is playable or not. That might not be the case if you have a commander deck focused on battle cards and using shenanigans to remove counters from things, but in decks not specifically focused on abusing battles I think only the ETB will really matter for how playable a card is.
March 31, 2023 11:11 a.m.
wallisface says... #43
I think battles are going to be a massive trap for new players, who may be more likely to sink unnecessary resources into attacking/defending them instead of focusing on the actual win condition of magic (getting your opponent to 0).
I can see some interesting combat tricks happening, in those decks that are able to remove counters at instant speed - being able to add a blocker into the mix.
March 31, 2023 4:18 p.m.
I'm thinking battles as enchantments that read:
"When CARDNAME enters the battlefield, do XYZ. Sacrifice CARDNAME: Target opponent gains X life. Transform CARDNAME."
...with the ETB being slightly less good than normal. Basically, you get a slightly under-powered ability with the opportunity to do something more useful down the road. You can just cast battles and then not even concern yourself with trying to get them to flip. Invasion of Ergamon is already decent value for . It's not Faithless Looting (obviously), but it's still playable. Letting your opponent essentially gain 5 life to get a 3/4 is a strong play in the right board state. And, since you're going to clock them for 3, they really only gained 2 life and you got a solid body with a loot ability.
March 31, 2023 7:03 p.m.
sylvannos It's not just them gaining life, most of the time you're going to attack or use direct damage to flip the battle card. That's not just life but tempo. If you're using direct damage that could mean you just lost a removal spell to flip a battle. And also if you're relying on combat to flip a battle you're shit out of luck if your opponent happens to have good blockers. I think battles are likely to be win more when you're ahead but won't do a whole lot to advance your board state when you're behind or in a stalled situation. In those cases you're likely to only get the ETB.
April 1, 2023 12:48 a.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #46
I think that WOTC really missed an opportunity here with battles.
There is a relatively recent rules change that could easily be utilized to make battles infinitely better.
Damage redirection to planeswalkers. Like how Crackling Doom used to be able to hit planeswalkers.
I think that for battles, you should attack the player defending it. Then after damage is dealt, you get to determine how much damage is dealt to the battle and how much is dealt to your opponent.
In my opinion, this makes the entire setup for battles - or, “Sieges,” more specifically, much more interesting.
Now the attacking player has fewer decisions to make during the attack step, as all the same creatures are going to attack the same way. But after damage is dealt, they have some decision making to do.
“Did I deal enough damage to flip my battle?”
“Should I deal 1 or 2 points to my opponent to trigger things like Spectacle or combat damage to player triggers?”
This also prevents damage from being wasted by excess health to the battle. Often times you want to attack a Planeswalker with more than you need because of removal and blockers, you want to guarantee that sucker is gone. But Battles provide no benefit for your opponent, so attacking for more than the health of the battle is so much worse.
The defending player now has to determine before blockers or combat damage how they need to block to defend the battle, or their life total.
This may add some element of “feels bad” moments when you attack your opponent and they make a mistake or forget the battle is on the field and then it flips because they didn’t think about these possibilities. But this adds more skill level to the game, I think.
Idk. Rant over lol.
April 1, 2023 1:10 a.m.
wallisface says... #47
Daveslab2022 imo that sounds needlessly complicated and messy. There’s a good reason why Wotc stopped damage redirection to planeswalkers and why Crackling Doom no longer works as you mention. Reintroducing an already-failed mechanic is surely not the path to success.
April 1, 2023 6:27 p.m.
Daveslab2022 says... #48
The only reason they removed the redirection rule was because it was fairly unintuitive, and also prevented planeswalkers from being damaged if the opponent had hexproof.
It certainly wasn’t a “failed mechanic” as you called it. The rule existed for over 11 years. How can you say a mechanic that existed for 11 years was a failed one? That seems silly
I also don’t see how it’s any more complicated than double blocking. You choose how the damage is dealt in that case, just the same as you would in this case. It’s effectively no different, except you choose after damage is dealt as opposed to before.
April 2, 2023 1:08 a.m.
I'm happy with battles being affected moreso by volume. Makes sense to me since traditional "battles" are all about numbers, unit strategy, & attrition, so more tokens/soldiers is preferable to winning battles & plain-old "going tall" scales more poorly to battles.
Opinionwise, I think they are fine. Reminded of sagas with an up-front cast or ETB effect. I would be more likely to use them in a deck with a bunch of tokens that I can spare to direct some elsewhere?
April 2, 2023 1:43 a.m.
wallisface says... #50
I think it being fairly unintuitive is a big hit against it. Particularly in the case where you're suggesting bringing it back in some form for battles, as that would then mean attacking a battle and a planeswalker behaving very differently from one another, amplifying that unintuitive.
the word “failed mechanic” may have been a bit harsh, but its still a mechanic that was removed for its play issues. It adds a whole lot of extra complications to the game that imo aren't really necessary and don't "add enough" to warrant being there.
Daveslab2022 says... #2
They have to be very careful with this.
Mostly because there’s nothing stopping you from casting the battle, and then immediately attacking it to flip it.
This means that none of the Battle cards will be inherently overpowered, and most will be underwhelming.
March 28, 2023 12:18 p.m.