MTGNexus

Gavin plopped out some hints for the Commander product, and of all the hints, this one captures my fancy the most (as can be attested to by the Custom Card forum):

Hint #14: There is FINALLY something that creates a 1/1 butterfly creature token with flying, only previously found in Magic online, in paper. #FreeTheButterfly


Of course, I think he means there will finally be a printed 1/1 green Insect token with flying named Butterfly, unless I'm greatly mistaken and the actual token has Butterfly as a new type.

Ally! An ally!!! He did say ally angel right? 😭😭

Sporegorger_Dragon wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Of course, I think he means there will finally be a printed 1/1 green Insect token with flying named Butterfly, unless I'm greatly mistaken and the actual token has Butterfly as a new type.

For reference, the existing card that creates this token is Giant Caterpillar, which does indeed create an insect token named 'Butterfly'.

So, we know what battles look like now.

Venedrex wrote: ↑

1 year ago

SPOILER

Show

Hide

https://press-start.com.au/news/2023/03 ... e-preview/

So, we know what battles look like now.

The fact that they come with a subtype makes me suspect we'll see at least one other subtype with different rules.

Huh, I'm...vaguely disappointed? I thought it was going to be a Dungeon-like things, not pseudo-planeswalkers.

Still, maybe the other will click better for me.

Ink-Treader wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Venedrex wrote: ↑

1 year ago

SPOILER

Show

Hide

https://press-start.com.au/news/2023/03 ... e-preview/

So, we know what battles look like now.

The fact that they come with a subtype makes me suspect we'll see at least one other subtype with different rules.

Yeah, my guess is the other major type will be the ones you play and then have to defend, rather than attack like the siege type.

I like the design space - looks like they've finally figured out the game mechanic they were going for with stuff like Monarch and the original planeswalkers. I think @Venedrex is also right on where "Sieges" go to an opponent to defend, and "Fortifications" or whatever are cards you need to defend that don't have a flipside or that flip after X turns or at "X" loyalty/energy/defense points/whatever we're calling them. Like most card types, there's also other design space here although the design space doesn't seem as deep as Planeswalkers or other stuff (for instance, the "defend it" isn't honestly that different than a Planeswalker these days).

I will also say though that I could see this set having only Sieges, and them saving other Battle types for a different set given that it doesn't feel like it's got the deepest design space.

For the card in particular - it's...fine. Explosive Vegetation isn't what it used to be and has been strictly bettered by Migration Path already. I generally would take Path over this in most decks and scenarios; giving an opponent 3 life isn't much of a "drawback" when there's also a chance you can nab a 4/4 Vigilance Haste mana dork later, but that also isn't the most brilliant pay-off I've ever seen.

Curious what the game definition of "defeated" is. Obviously seems like you attack into this like a planeswalker but - can you Lightning Bolt a battle to defeat it and claim your prize? What about Vindicate or Beast Within it? I'd assume that an exile/tuck/bounce effect won't do it, but who knows. Interesting stuff.

EDIT: Also a shame that it is "cast transformed" when defeated; as pointed out this makes battles doubly weak to a Counterspell and means that stuff like Teferi, Time Raveler totally bricks them.

Hawk wrote: ↑

1 year ago

stuff like Teferi, Time Raveler totally bricks them.

maybe teferi is the problem here XD

battles feel like reverse planeswalkers, not sure how a battle YOU have to defend is going to be too different from having a planeswalker, but we'll see.

Also, am I just dumb or does the "as long as this card is on the battlefield clause" not do anything? the card is going to be a battle in any other zone anyways. Are battles going to be treated differently then other transform cards?

Can't say I'm in love with DFC design, but the reverse planeswalker angle is pretty neat. Question: are battles a nonland permanent?

TheAmericanSpirit wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Can't say I'm in love with DFC design, but the reverse planeswalker angle is pretty neat. Question: are battles a nonland permanent?

That would have major consequences regarding removal that hits any permanent. Maybe they only trigger if the counters are removed as seen with Sagas? Oder their trigger is tied to combat damage? Maybe they exist in the command zone.

Dunadain wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Hawk wrote: ↑

1 year ago

stuff like Teferi, Time Raveler totally bricks them.

maybe teferi is the problem here XD

battles feel like reverse planeswalkers, not sure how a battle YOU have to defend is going to be too different from having a planeswalker, but we'll see.

Also, am I just dumb or does the "as long as this card is on the battlefield clause" not do anything? the card is going to be a battle in any other zone anyways. Are battles going to be treated differently then other transform cards?

I suspect that "as long as it's on the battlefield" clause is because the backside is cast when you "defeat the battle", and a Land on the stack makes the rules break. This didn't need to be a land, mind, but that does make it fairly resilient and is also important Zendikar flavor and synergy (this will trigger landfall, not die to stuff that says "non-land", etc.).

Battles are interesting. As a general rule, I think mechanics that encourage creature combat are good - that tends to be the most interactive style of gameplay, and it's also most approachable for new players. I do have some concerns that the mechanic may be a bit too snowbally though - if a player can both play a battle and immediately flip it, that represents a ton of tempo, and it may not be possible for their opponent to come back from it. Still, I do appreciate them as a contrast to planeswalkers, who also tend to be snowbally - planeswalkers encourage turtling up to protect them (and potentially dropping a board wipe or two), which isn't a particularly fun play pattern. Battles require their owner to be more aggressive, which should make things more interesting.

...I do have some concerns re: how they'll work in multiplayer. It sounds like anyone other than the battle's controller can attack it, but I assume that only its owner gets the benefit of the backside. So, I don't see a reason for other players to actually attack it. That's relatively minor though, and I imagine there may be some multiplayer-focused battles.

New card types are always tricky though - there obviously aren't many cards that interact with battles yet (minus potentially burn that can hit any target and removal that can hit any card type), so it may be challenging to get them off the table... although given that removing them causes them to transform, that may be a good thing? Hmmm... we haven't really seen any new card types recently (planeswalkers and tribal were added ages ago), but given WotC's track record with more experimental mechanics, I assume something will end up breaking Standard. I guess we'll see.

re: 'this is a land on the battlefield' - I assume that's just because the card needs to be cast when it transforms, and you can't cast lands.

Mookie wrote: ↑

1 year ago

I do have some concerns re: how they'll work in multiplayer.

I feel like "hey, could you let me flip my battle" is going to become a common occurrence in multiplayer, as well as quid-pro-quos.

anyone else think that this would be the perfect set for a reprint of March of the Machines or just me?

You know what's funny? I wonder if battles were meant to help aggro decks in the same way planeswalkers ended up helping control decks.

Planeswalkers are often the win-condition for control decks, I wonder if battles end up becoming the win condition for some aggro decks. If you have a swarm of cheap creatures, you could easily cash in on the flip side of a battle. I kind of like the idea of battles being the mirror for planeswalkers and a payoff for running lots of creatures.

EDIT: In case anyone else want to see, an article got posted early:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/curtissilv ... cb0236062a

Everyone seems to think that non-siege battles will involve defending them. Possible, but that seems pretty boring since planeswalkers already occupy that space. My theory is that they'll be attackable by either player, and whoever pops the pinata will either get to cast it, or it will be worded such that it's good for the active player.

DirkGently wrote: ↑

1 year ago

My theory is that they'll be attackable by either player,

Like the Smash ball from Super Smash Bros?

Ugg, I thought Wizards had acknowledged Eminence was an awful mechanic.

Sporegorger_Dragon wrote: ↑

1 year ago

EDIT: In case anyone else want to see, an article got posted early:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/curtissilv ... cb0236062a

huh... I'm not as hyped as I tought I would be, I don't think any of the new legendaries sparkled my interest

Halo Forager Seems good. it's a snapcaster without flash that fixes the mana for the spell you are casting. Seems ok, I like the evasion.

The other +1/+1 cards are more of the same.

I do love a racoon fighter typing though

Dunadain wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Ugg, I thought Wizards had acknowledged Eminence was an awful mechanic.

I think it's fine if it's done with an under-powered tribe, and with a mediocre reward. Like nobody complains about poor Arahbo.

Sporegorger_Dragon wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Dunadain wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Ugg, I thought Wizards had acknowledged Eminence was an awful mechanic.

I think it's fine if it's done with an under-powered tribe, and with a mediocre reward. Like nobody complains about poor Arahbo.

It's not even a question of power level, its just... lame. It can't be interacted with. It's like having an emblem at the start of the game, excpet even emblems can be cleared with Karn Liberated I guess.

Nobody complains about Arahbo, Roar of the World but the card is still lame.

Now obviously, a mechanic can be terrible, but a mechanic doesn't exist in a vacuum. Storm is a terrible mechanic (again, by Wizards own admission) but Weather the Storm is actually a pretty neat card in pioneer, and Flusterstorm is a somewhat interesting piece of countermagic.

So, could there be a fun Eminence card? Maybe, but this sure ain't it, this is just boring.

Sporegorger_Dragon wrote: ↑

1 year ago

I think it's fine if it's done with an under-powered tribe, and with a mediocre reward. Like nobody complains about poor Arahbo.

Isn't she, like, banned in Duel Commander? https://www.mtgdc.info/banned-restricted

Dunadain wrote: ↑

1 year ago

So, could there be a fun Eminence card? Maybe, but this sure ain't it, this is just boring.

Oh sure, the new Knight guy is pretty boring, but I'm thinking something that does something really wacky, and only eminence will enable it.

cheonice wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Isn't she, like, banned in Duel Commander?

Well she's not alone on that list.