Battle Cards are a Mess

[@ValianceGames]

14:11 I'm not kidding when I say our pod was just like this when one of our buddies played Battle cards. We were like "What? What's the point of all of this?" It was more frustrating than anything and we ended up ignoring the card all together and just letting him have the creature, literally wondering why he didn't just skip the steps and summon the creature.

[@RedBobcatGames]

THANK YOU! I've had so many comments tell me this sort of thing doesn't happen. Thanks

[@dj66800]

5:35 Amusingly you do NOT give control of it to the opponent. You simply 'choose' them as the designated person to 'defend' it. It remains your permanent.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah you're right. I probably could have been a bit more specific, but I just didn't want to get bogged down in minutiae when giving a broad over view on the flavour, you know?

[@quelfth4413]

You're not saying that you are Zhalfir and your opponent is New Phyrexia. Rather, you are saying that you are going to essentially planeswalk into the ongoing invasion of New Phyrexia by Zhalfir and take the side of Zhalfir, attempting to help them win the Battle. The reason why you're doing this is to gain Teferi as an ally, since he's otherwise preocupied. Your opponent has the option to attempt to stop you from helping Zhalfir, so as to prevent you from getting Teferi. They're not necessarily on the side of New Phyrexia, they're just hindering your efforts to help in the invasion.

[@RedBobcatGames]

I've heard people talk about how these should have bene Portals instead of Battles. I feel like your spin is the first time I've heard that particular version of it. I feel like if that were to work, your opponent should also get the option to choose side. Maybe they don't want to help New Phyrexia. Maybe they'd also like to help Zhalfir and get Tefari on side

[@CatManThree]

I never though about it that way.

[@calemr]

​​@@RedBobcatGamesI feel there's a degree of necessity antagonism between player's goals in being a competitive card game here. To provide an alternative example: flavor wise, a planeswalker is a specific person you have a deal or friendship or W/E with to enlist temporary aid from. But there's no rule like "Whenever your opponent casts a planeswalker spell, you may reveal a card with the same name from anywhere in your deck to counter that spell.", despite the fact that you might Both have the same Sorin, and argue "Ok, but he's also friends with Me, so why would he reduce my life total to 10?" And by approaching this from the other direction, we can say "Yes, your opponent CAN decide to also join the side of Zhalfir to get Teferi's help: They can play their own copy of the card."

[@jackcois6077]

@@RedBobcatGames There is another way of looking at it from the lens of being a Phyrexian. You are declaring a siege (the cards subtype) on the plane of Ikoria during this fight with another plainswalker. Your opponent can chose to devote their resources to defending this plane and you can devote your resources to attacking it. If you succeed in taking down this plain, you steal the resources available to it. That can be in the form of stripping the plane of their biggest monsters, stripping the magic and using it to fuel your fight or bargaining with the plainswalkers there so that you will spare the plane. I think this theme is very poorly communicated but it is there.

[@flaetsbnort]

@@calemr There was a time when playing a legendary permanent caused all permanents of the same name to die, even if your opponent controlled them, because the idea was that there was only one Jace or Kamahl or Gerard and so there couldn't be two of them. It was changed because people started adding a Jace card to their decks only to counter it in the decks that actually used it. So at some point you could, in fact, cause your opponent's Jace to go away by proving that he's also your friend

[@B1gLupu]

"You can just have the creature my dude" I'm choking in laughter here. Blue bear eared guy is a solid dude 😂

[@RedBobcatGames]

I'll let him know haha

[@arivald6677]

They made limited very enjoyable, I liked them a lot. The biggest think i like them about is battle are turning damage in another resource, we used to pay our own life points for certain effects and now we also trade damage points. Whats more important: Unlocking battle reward or dealing damage to enemy? Those cards are cool and flavourful mechanic to me.

[@briankruesi6484]

Agreed. They made an awesome limited format.

[@PreviewAvailable]

It was pretty good in limited. But none of them really see play anywhere else except for like 1 or 2 that are really good in older formats.

[@mountainghoti1671]

It was meant to work past standard, to slow down all formats and make the games last longer, but few of the effects were enough to compete with the existing power creep.

[@ryftedmage1404]

⁠@@PreviewAvailableThey’re good in commander. It’s great for politics and the effects are very strong

[@vitormiranda201]

in limited 60 cards and EDH they are very relevant, in fact multiplayer formats seem the natural environment for battles such as monarch, goad, dethrone, myriad and tempting offer

[@a66x]

For theme wise I’d think of it as a separate battle happening somewhere else in enemy territory (explaining why the enemy controls and defends it) that you send forces to help win, in turn gaining you some kind of advantage

[@mountainghoti1671]

Wonderful thought there. Too bad wizards couldn't explain it like that.

[@artemiskearney8019]

Note that the enemy *does not* control it, it's still a permanent you control, it's just placed on their side of the table for clarity, like how you'd put a Pacifism physically on an opponent's creature (but could still sacrifice it to Bargain)

[@gallowayrobert3]

I see a game of magic as a war, and if you look at it from that perspective, battles make more thematical since

[@RedBobcatGames]

I suppose that could make sense. It just feels really messy to me still though

[@burymeinmsg]

Feel's pretty intuitive to me, I think this video is a better criticism of the wotc video explaining battle rather than a criticism of the mechanic itself. I can see why they chose to explain the mechanic the way that they did though. They wanted to relate battle to planeswalkers closely so that players could understand the card mechanically perhaps at the cost of not understanding the card thematically. Having said all that, I don't run any battles in my cube as I feel like flavour wise it's odd to call forth another specific battle to my battle.

[@Red_Mag3]

Next battle subtype will be one you defend, has an ongoing benefit for you for as long as you defend it and will force your opponent into flipping it to give you a lesser reward instead of ongoing value.

[@RedBobcatGames]

I'm sort of hoping it's one that plays the same once down regardless of who cast it. So eveyone can fight over it equally, like an actual battle

[@vikingdazed7366]

besides the flipping, that is how plansewalkers operate. I think the battle idea would been best implemented as alternative game mode perhaps a cooperative mode where you team up against conditions described on the battle cards.

[@HenshinFanatic]

Or something like the special sets Archenemy, Planechase, Vanguard (not to be confused with the Cardfight one), etc.

[@jaycue7641]

​@RedBobcatGames I think this isn't a bad idea. Kind of reminds me of the old Clash mechanic.

[@marcoottina654]

lovely, but that's basically a passive Planeswalker .... like "Artifacts were, in origin, colorless enchantment that might be able to TAP".

[@otsokarhu9695]

All this is purely an issue of the language used, which shows the crunch at WOTC. If a few talented english speakers looked over the reveal video script properly, Battles would have gone over a lot smoother. "defeat your opponent in this specific battle to gain an advantage in your war" is a very good card idea at base. Also, The cards should have been called defenses except for new phyrexia.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Boom. Exactly my thoughts. Good comment

[@quelfth4413]

We are neither the invader nor the one being invaded. We are adding the invasion as a strategically important auxiliary battle to the main battle of the game. We are sending our forces to fight in another battle in expectation that when that battle is over, we are rewarded with the thing on the back, which will help us in our main battle.

[@RedBobcatGames]

So who's the enemy in the other battle? Because by the nature of casting the spell yourself, it would imply it's you yourself. And your opponent can choose to defend you from you. Strange

[@Zarbon000]

@@RedBobcatGamesBattle is such a mess 😂

[@Faude18]

@@RedBobcatGames i get that you don't like battles in concept (and WotC's explanation is really lackluster), but you're also casting world ending spells and artifacts that rip space and time over and over in your "battles". Neither of this makes sense.

[@TheJadeFist]

To be fair, the with difference between Artifacts and Enchantments, they USED be more rigid. It wasn't until recent few years where you got colored artifacts, or enchantments that are colorless, though that last one is more of an eldrazi thing. The lines between card types become more and more blurred in the more recent years.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah. I feel the same is true of the colour pie too. Like, the D&D Dragon cards are completely off the rail and just doing whatever. It's a shame

[@emilymcpherson6564]

for me, the main difference between enchants and artifacts is that artifacts can have tap abilities and for the most part enchantments cant

[@RedBobcatGames]

@@emilymcpherson6564 Sure but even that's not always true. In my head it's that an artifact requires and represents a physical object, where as an enchantment is a spell, curse, story or just general vibe

[@PhoenicopterusR]

I don't know if I'd necessarily argue that about coloured artifacts, since they've been around since '07.

[@epicwatermelon363]

@@RedBobcatGamesNot really related to the video but I’m curious, how are any of the AFR/CLB Dragons color pie breaks? They all seem pretty within pie to me

[@georgeneuman488]

I gotta say, your description of all the cards and how they work is the best "in a nutshell" on MTG I've ever heard. I could show this to my brothers who know nothing about the game, and they'd pick up on the basic ideas behind it pretty quickly. Hell my parents would probably even get it! Very concise and yet comprehensive...well done.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Thank you. I actually worried when making it that I was being too vauge. For instance, I said that Planeswalkers "have their own life total" which... mechanically isn't true, but you get it. Or at least I hope people do

[@georgeneuman488]

@@RedBobcatGames No it's vague in a good way, it's a nice overview - like for someone who plays video games but never touched a trading card game, they would totally get it. Those three or so minutes are a perfect intro to the basics behind how the cards work and, beyond that, a taste of the game itself. Even saying sorceries are more powerful spells so naturally (thematically) a wizard would need more time to prepare one, and are therefore (mechanically) slower cards to play...that's a great way to put that. Like you said, theme and mechanics need to line up for it all to work and just make sense. And battle cards don't do that at all!

[@RedBobcatGames]

Well, thank you. That's really nice to hear

[@jamesownzyou]

I am excited to finally defeat the concept of battle once and for all

[@RedBobcatGames]

Once they figure this out, WotC should contact the UN

[@ryftedmage1404]

The way it makes sense to me thematically is that battles are similar to sagas. You don’t get all the effects at once with sagas. You have to wait for time to pass. The context of the story in the saga is a component of getting each effect. Spells in magic are in a lot of ways your memories, if not explicitly that. Sagas seem like stories you’ve heard. While battles are probably an event you experienced. It might be that in your mind the battle is so linked with the spell that you can’t summon it without summoning the context of the battle. Or it could be that the battle is a component of the spell, just as much as the mana for it is. Almost like an additional cost that some spells have. Similar to sacrificing a creature or losing life. In this perspective it makes battles more flavorful for the game and way cooler as a concept. I can’t quite think of a reason why you’d give it to an opponent to defend. But I get that they had to do it so you could attack the thing. They only thing I could possibly think up is that the battles distract your opponent briefly and the etb effect on the battle is what you do in that brief moment while the opponent is distracted

[@RedBobcatGames]

I would be on board with this actually. I think they'd need to be called something like "Reenactments" instead to get the point across those. Good comment

[@Interesting_Failure]

My impression is the "reenactment" part of a battle is similar to the handwave that any creature you summon is only a mana clone (or similar) of the actual creature

[@ryftedmage1404]

@@RedBobcatGames thank you. Awesome video btw, keep at it!

[@guigolum]

@@RedBobcatGames every card in magic is a reenactment.

[@johnworcester2121]

​@@Interesting_Failure Pretty sure Baron Sengir was literally summoned to different planes by wizards in lore and thats why vampirism turns up everywhere

[@abderianagelast7868]

I do love that these new cards are separate objectives to attack, like Planeswalkers, but that you put on your opponent's side of the field instead. It's a fun idea and I like it from a purely mechanical perspective! I just wish that they made more sense thematically.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Me too. I also really love the idea each card represents a different plane. I just wish I liked them more in execution

[@Lionbug]

DAMN Ephara's flavor text goes HARD!

[@RedBobcatGames]

Right?!

[@laerite]

I won't argue on thematics, as that's pretty personal and i feel like either it works for you or it doesn't. You raise valid points on what it means to "play a battle". However: the idea that wotc "knew they were bad" is absurd and conspiratorial. They all have the same subtype so that the battle type can be flexible, and that they can add more similar cards without having to add entire new card types to the game constantly. Likely in playtesting they had many ideas for how a battle *could* work, and so instead of dedicating themselves to only one, they said "hey, this way works best for what we want in MOM, but since we've done the work and found other types that work too, why not leave the space to add them in the future?". I'm sure next time we see battles, they will have a new subtype. So that they can try new things! Magic's development is an endless story of new additions and new improvements! Not because they have some master plan to never print battles again. Why do you choose to believe wotc are intentionally doing bad things*; that the developers are actively tricking us, when you could believe theyre trying to do good? That sort of logic really confuses me. Same with your example of playing it at the table, why are the players being deliberatly obtuse? If someone is asking, "Why would I want to defend it", that is a failure of the explanation, not of the card. As for mechanical purpose, Extra Credits have a video or two (The Genius Behind MTG's First New Card Type in 15 Years - Extra Credits) on the topic that i found enlightening, as they do seem to be focused on the early game in 1vs1 formats, and while i enjoy a little draft/sealed from time to time, i mostly play commander where they don't seem that incredible. My disagreement aside, your video is well produced, and your starting introduction on other card types was very well put and concise, I quite liked it :) *this is about the developers. Any opinions on what management are up to in hasbro/wotc... well. Yeah. Fair enough.

[@RedBobcatGames]

I think it says a lot about me that I beamed when I read "absurd and conspiratorial". I don't want to be conspiratorial, but throw absurd in there I love it haha. And to answer your question (which you kind of answered yourself) I don't believe the developers are intentionally doing bad things. I think they're doing bad things as a result of crunch and a rapid pace of production. I think Battles should have spent a little more time in refinement. Even if not mechanically, but just to say "Hey, what the hell is this idea actually trying to represent"?. Looking at my comments alone, the community seems incredibly split on them, and a fact a video titled "Battle Cards are a Mess" has been seen so many times whilst on a small channel like mine I think it telling. It's not our responsibility as consumers to cut the developers slack, because their corporate overlords hold them to the fire. So when products come out that aren't up to standard, then we have not just a right to voice that opinion, but a responsibility. Because otherwise the higher ups will take that slack we gave the developers, and use it to tighten the reigns and push for more and more quantity, at the expense of quality. Call me consiratorial, but look at the job losses recently. I think I'm right, and the "subtype" was just a patch on a larger wound of development crunch

[@solemnmagus]

My problem with Battles is that the reward usually makes more sense if it happened during the actual 'battle' and not after it. Like with the Invasion of Innistrad; I first kill one big thing, then I get tons of zombies if I win. I feel like it would have been more appropriate to get the zombies first and then the kill effect, if I used zombies to win the battle by killing the enemy general. But that wouldn't have been a new card type, just a creature with unique transform condition that flips into an enchantment. Let's make this into a card; Roil's Defender 2GG, 4/4 Elemental, Trample When ~ deals combat damage to a player, instead put that many defense counters on it. Then if it has 3 or more defense counters on it, transform it. Roil's Triumph, Enchantment When this card transforms into Roil's Triumph, you may search your library for a land card and put it on to the battlefield tapped. Whenever a land enters the battlefield under your control, you gain 1 life and create a 0/1 Sapproling token. This makes much more sense to me. As a total tangent; enchantments and artifacts are not distinct from even sorceries now. Madness.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah, I think so too. I made a quick reference to this when I asked why Teferi couldn't have shown up before the battle ended, but I didn't elaborate, and it was fast so people may missed it. I like your idea for how they could be fixed, but I'm confused (and a bit worried what it's going to do to how I see sorceries), but what do you mean by your last comment? Are you saying because they're all spells? or have WotC annoucned something new that will make me roll my eyes?

[@solemnmagus]

​@@RedBobcatGames I mean the cards like Unstable Glyphbridge. It could have been a sorcery.

[@Xarr23]

Thematically, you play as planeswalkers. Imagine you are fighting against another wizard and suddenly transport you and your enemy to, IDK, the invasion on Normandy on D-Day. That's the battle. If you help them destroy the bunkers and the weapons of the Nazis (attacking the battle card) the allies will reward you with...whatever tank vehicle or bazooka equipment idk. That's it. You went to the battle to get their weapons or their strong units. Your opponent can block your efforts so you don't get the reward. I found it super thematic, something that finally makes you feel like walking through planes and important events in time. Mechanically, sometimes you have 'When attacking' text, but it's no use attacking your opponent cuz they have strong blockers, so activate 'when attacking' abilities on stuff you own

[@RedBobcatGames]

Well I'm glad you enjoyed them. I'd love to have felt the same. I just want my cards to inspire my imagination, instead of asking me to do the heavy lifting in terms of what they represent. Nice to hear the feedback that people liked them though. Thank you

[@Jakejj55]

If they have strong blockers that prevent you from attacking them, they can also use said blockers to prevent you from attacking the battle. The player defending a battle can block creatures attacking that battle as if those creatures were just attacking them directly, so i can't make sense of that last sentence.

[@drakegrandx5914]

@@Jakejj55 I'd say it's less relevant is situations of "strong blockers" and more when it's a 50/50 trade. Maybe the opponent could stop your attack by sacrificing their own creatures, but if you aren't attacking their LPs, it's a less dangerous threat and are gonna keep their creatures. This actually seems to work since, indeed, the fact that battles aren't usually worth attacking has been one of their biggest criticism: if you'd rather waste 4 damage to get a 4/4 with Trample and Vigilance rather than just dealing it to my life or my creatures, sure, go for it.

[@drew941]

They confirmed that siege is only the first battle type when they released them...

[@RedBobcatGames]

Theory confirmed then

[@mountainghoti1671]

​@@RedBobcatGames Personal grudge, or character assassination attempt, or even Cat Fight should be in the works...

[@pastapockets984]

A more mechanical take on the thematic failure of battles for me is that battles operate on the field like some kind of fort. The defending player needs to protect the 'fort' to prevent the opponent from breaching the walls and gaining an advantage. The failure is that the defending player derives no direct benefit to protecting the 'fort' beyond indirectly denying the opponent the opposite side being recast. Wizards need to amp up battles by hyper amping up their flipside but also give the front side a small, continual benefit FOR THE DEFENDER. Turn a battle into a gamble play that might accidentally give your opponent the advantage. Obviously don't simply make the frontside symmetrical, but it can be small, like giving the opponent an upkeep trigger to pay 2 and get a map token. Anything to make its defense valued on at least some level. Right now, despite the overly convoluted specifics of battles, the actual cards are balanced like they're just regular one off ETB artifacts, or even sorceries. And the only ones that see play are typically the ones that get played for that ETB, like the Zendikar one. Also other difference between artifacts and enchantments is that many have some sort of activated ability that requires tapping, to create the sense that you're 'using' the item.

[@RedBobcatGames]

I'm on the same mind. I sort of wish these cards acted as a third party, that both players could attack or defend. Make it feel like a bit more of an actual Battle, you know?

[@aneonafroman115]

The only battles we've seen are sieges, and thus are you sieging your opponent's land (hence why they enter under your opponent's control). Should you win the siege against your opponent, the siege is over so it leaves the battlefield and you gain an advantage from their land. The cost of playing the siege is the cost of starting a siege against your opponent.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Sure, but as a Planeswalker, what actually happens when you cast one? What does a siege spell look like?

[@drakegrandx5914]

@@RedBobcatGames What happens when you cast a Saga? Or "Chandra's Defeat"? Or when you generate mana by tapping and sacrificing a treasure token? MTG cards aren't made with the "You are a planeswalker that casts spell against other planeswalkers" narrative in mind (something that's been obsolete for over a decade by know, btw). They are made with the intent of portraying a specific element present in the MTG world, whether an event, a creature/object/spell/etc., or a location. So, while flavor still has a very important role in card execution, there's a very huge difference between, for example, criticizing the World Tree for not being a Legendary Land, or the huge increase in UBs we are seeing, and complaining that you can't envision how the made-up wizard in your head could be able to "cast a battle".

[@BCWasbrough]

Feels like they chose a bad name for the card type. If they were called "Objective" instead, then I might make more sense. You put it into play, send your team to take the objective, and you opponents may choose to stop you. If you succeed, you get a reward. I understand why they named them Battles, but it was a dumb choice.

[@bradensorensen966]

I disagree. Battle makes perfect sense.

[@RedBobcatGames]

I'd think I'd be okay with the battle name, if it were clearer on exactly what they are meant to represent

[@K9affirmative]

@@RedBobcatGames how is it unclear? they're all named "invasion of x" and when you defeat the battle (stop the invasion) you get an effect related to the plane. The flavor on the cards is pretty obvious

[@jmanwild87]

@@RedBobcatGames To be fair I find it pretty clear. what you're trying to do with battles is you're transporting the battle between you and your opponent to another battle. In all current battles, trying to stop the invasion of a certain plane or at least a mana-based reenactment of one. With your opponent trying to have the battle go on as long as possible if they can. The only issue i have is that adding counters to a battle is a pain in the butt in this interpretation. if you succeed (win the battle) you get rewarded with a powerful spell. If they weren't specifically named battles, you could probably use them to represent all kinds of contests. And they're pretty ok in 1v1 formats

[@jmanwild87]

The reason you attack the battle rather than defend it is because you're trying to break the siege not have it go on. If you were the one defending a battle they'd just become attackable enchantments or worse planeswalkers and require a complete and likely awkward redesign in function

[@JimFaindel]

I find battles to be quite flavorful additions to the deck. Going back to the concept of wizards fighting, you're transporting yourself and your enemy into a new and hostile territory to take them by surprise, and if you recognize there's value to be gained from engaging in the conflict presented in this new battle, you do so by picking a side, using your resources to tip the odds in their favor, and are rewarded with a new ally or power to double down against your original opponent. In a sense, they feel to me like much less random and better defined versions of the planechase cards, if you've ever played that variant of the game.

[@RedBobcatGames]

I have, and I do love me some planeschase. I suppose the main sticking point for me is the one sided nature of battles. Because only the person that cast it can really engage with it fully. I think if either player had a chance of flipping the card I'd be more on board with them. The game play isn't bad, it's just the flavour that I'm not sold on

[@JimFaindel]

That I agree, I remember using a killspell for a battle in limited and being utterly dissapointed at not getting the flipside myself. @@RedBobcatGames

[@gavekorttilikea]

Thematically they make perfect sense tho. You use resources (Mana) to muster an invasion force (Battle/siege) to invade another planewalkers plane. You use your combatants (Creatures/damage) to successfully invade another plane. Other planeswalkers can try and stop you from invading their plane and using their resources for your own army.

[@RedBobcatGames]

So if battles represent your invasion force, and creatures represent your combatants, what is the difference between your invasion force and your combatants? If you have no combatants, how is it still an invasion force? I mean, you said it youself. If we take Battles out of the mix, we're still using creatures "to successfully invade another plane". So if Battles cards don't, or aren't needed to represent that, what exactly are they then? I'm very happy to have my mind changed, because I'd love to be on board with them. I just don't think they make any sense

[@gavekorttilikea]

​@@RedBobcatGames Preparing for an invasion is not the same as invading. The siege card does not represent your forces, it represents a battlefield with a strategic resource which you aim to conquer. This is what the siege card is, its the preparation for a hostile takeover. And like in many wars, opposing forces can and will intervene when you aim to gain strategic advantages to use against them in the long run. Which is why the opposing player(s) can hinder your progress in said siege as they don't want you to have the upper hand from doing so. I don't really see them less thematically fitting than many of the other nonsense in the game.

[@RedBobcatGames]

@@gavekorttilikea Oh yeah, addressing your last point first. Lots of cards are total nonsense in this game, for sure. My issue with Battles is that it's the first time an entire card type seems to not make sense. For instance, you said Battles represent a battlefield. But, we already have "The Battlefield" representing the battlefield, so what are Battles doing? And if casting a Battle represents summoning a strategic resource, why would we spend our mana to give that resource to our opponent, instead of cast it on ourselves for them to attack us? If casting a Battle doesn't represent summoning a resource, but instead preparing to siege a preexisting one... they why doesn't it preexist? Why are we siegeing something we summon, and not one of our opponents actual resources like their land for instance? And finally, I'd be on board with the idea that casting a battle represents preperation for an invasion... but what does that look like? What exactly is it that's happening, and why isn't it reflected in the card art? I think my main issue with them is that they weren't explained. Why are we having to do the heavy lifting in terms of working out what the card is supposed to represent?

[@gavekorttilikea]

@@RedBobcatGames The new "Battlefield" you are summoning is a portal to another plane. It's not a resource for the enemy, its a hostage you give them to protect from you so you don't get it's value. And what it looks like is a phyrexian invasion like there is on most of the cards. Phyrexians vs. the defenders of the plane.

[@RedBobcatGames]

@@gavekorttilikea If you want to attack this hostage, why would you give it to your opponent to protect? This is what I mean by saying they're a mess. The explanation is all over the place. Also, I would fully support the Portal idea (it's the best explanation I've heard for them) but when I looked into it, this seemed to just be head canon / fan theory. The cards don't seem to support the idea. And all it would need is for the subtype to be "portal" instead, but alas

[@dicedude1071]

I do agree that the battle cards are very thematically clunky- I was always wondering with the Invasions whether when I play it if I'm the Phyrexians or not, because the other player is defending it. That being said, while they're an odd thematic choice, I really do enjoy their gameplay

[@RedBobcatGames]

Well that's good to hear at least. My friend has an EDH deck with every single battle card it in, and wow. It's not a good deck but it is a laugh

[@dicedude1071]

@RedBobcatGames my main exposure to them is in limited, where they introduce a little minigame. I really enjoy MoM limited, and I've included a couple of the relevant battles in my own personal cube

[@RedBobcatGames]

Oh sick. I've never played a cube but have always wanted to. It sounds like a lot of fun

[@Ropsuguy]

Maybe if they were called "stratagems" and represented drawing up, and then executing a plan of action to weaken the opponent or accomplishing a strategic objective to get an advantage. then sending creatures to accomplish that. call the amount of damager that needs to be done "operations" or something similiar. Then as a reward, a creature really makes no sense unless youre building something non-living, so an emblem(in the case of a strategic advantage), enchantment (in case of a magical ritual) or a one time effect (for example for a quick raid).

[@RedBobcatGames]

I've seen this idea a few times before and I think it is by far my favourite representation of what the cards are supposed to be

[@khananiel-joshuashimunov4561]

I thought it was like a memory of a fight your planeswalker was in before. You conjure it hoping to kill everything inside except the one thing that you wanted that's otherwise occupied. Maybe the reason you don't summon just the one thing is that they're too intrinsically tied to the memory? Like, you want to conjure that goddess in that plane, but you get PTSD while trying to remember her.

[@RedBobcatGames]

That's actually a really cool take, and the one I've heard that fits in best with the way the rest of the cards are framed

[@IssaUserName]

I really enjoy the mechanical nature of battles. It might not make any flavorful sense, but mechanically you pay for a sorcery that then can turn into a permanent for combat damage. That's it. That's the function of the cards and the reason to bring them. The whole "what do I get for blocking" and shit is just filler. You do prevent the other half of the card. If you wanted to prevent the ETB, you'd need to counter. it's just two spells shoved into one in a new fashion.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Oh yeah, from a mechanical standpoint they're fine. I'd have preferred if your opponent got something for defending it, just for a bit of spice. But my issues basically lies with the flavour alone

[@TheBigBoopy]

This video is gonna be the one that blows up! Also, I sporadically play commander with my friendos and I hadn't picked up a deck since All Will Be One. My pal played that battle card and I had 3 minor heart attacks trying to figure the card out before realizing it really wasn't that bad (Wasn't that good either). Thematically, I doesn't make sense. Great video and plz keep goin!

[@RedBobcatGames]

Thanks man, I will. And yeah, battle cards seem really complicated on first impression. Tbh I think that's due to how they're conceptually hard to grasp. They're not like creatures or instants which are easier to get your head around on first glance

[@tsucube4377]

You were right about this being the one that picks up. First-time viewer here and will check out his other content!

[@diegocassola1]

The word you're looking for instead of "thematical" is "ludonarrative dissonance", the problem that the mechanic (the ludos) and the narrative are in dissonance with each other. The theming of battles was always flimsy, I though about them as "the battle is happening right now, and by helping it you won the reward", which still doesn't help the narrative or the flavour. I hoped wotc change it to "event" or "ritual" or something else because the mechanic of permanent that grants immediate effect plus a backside that needs effort to activate is cool, but framing them all as battles or sieges is very limiting for the theming, maybe battle or siege could be subset that requires damage to activate, with the others demanding other kind of activation.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Very much my thoughts. I feel like these could have just been an enchantment with the Seiege subtype. I really don't see what they're doing that an Enchantment doesn't already do. Making a whole new card type to just never print it again I also feel is telling. Imagine a new set with Instance for example, weird.

[@Zarbon000]

Imagine the people who made this. They like us, couldn’t make sense of it. But time deadlines ran out. And us fools will buy anything.

[@zbaschtian]

"The thematics of a card are more important than the mechanics!" he cried from his perch, as he attacked his opponent with a pseudo-King Arthur with the same lethality and survivability as the average Shivan dragon. The King, of course, was summoned into existence by an enchantment that empowers a fiery anvil into allowing sorcerers to cheat at magic, and was coaxed into attacking by drawing fire off of a mountain to light a fire up his bum. Thematics.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah, exactly. I wish that WotC would just explain it like that!

[@baddestpython2899]

I thinks good way to fix these issues is make it like a castle (or some other strategic point of interest) and you choose who to defend it. The defending player get buffs (like gain a bunch of health or create creatures or something) for every turn the control the battle. When a player deals damage to it either the did get worse or the attacking player get something in reward (maybe a treasure). The player to deal the last point of damage get the big reward and flips the card under there control.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Like a land card that can be attacked? I'm on board, I think that works. And I think the flavour of that would make sense too. Or at least more sense than what we got!

[@smefgrimstae7845]

Battles are violent event taking place in or around your conflict with the other play. You can send your creatures to attack them, rather than your opponent. If you win the battle, you gain a strategic resource or opportunity that further helps you fight. Thematically, it could be seen as a bit strange to have an opponent look after a battle, going on to their side of the 'field. But the alternative is attacking a thing on your side, which I'd argue is equally as strange.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yup, you're right. Just sort of strange both ways in the end. I bet if they'd have spent more time on them, or explained them differently they could have avoided that

[@Big_Dai]

I enjoyed this, and I totally agree. Not only these don't make sense, it's a perfect example of their terrible design philosophy.. Battles are like one time spells that behave like Walkers and become a permanent. A wall of text and complications. I do think that the player paying Mana for a Battle is akin to Planeswalking to a location to join the fight. When you spend enough resources to turn the tide of battle, the beings there thank you by joining your other-current-battle or something. It's still dumb because you take your current opponent with you, everything you both were using, and then you force them to spend resources into fighting a Battle they have nothing to do with. Terrible design.

[@RedBobcatGames]

And what gets me is I feel all of these problems could have been avoided but just changing a few names, or presenting them in a different light. They just felt rushed

[@LucasTigy2]

the reason why there's the siege sub-type is so that they can make different kinds of battles later on. not sure when they'll return as a mechanic, but i would guess there could be a type that would indicate it's for a smaller scale battle

[@RedBobcatGames]

I think I'd have an easier time understanding "siege" if I understood what just a battale on it's own was in the first place. Very strange they released cards only with the subtype. Like, what happens when we cast it? What visually changes, you know?

[@RedOphiuchus]

​@@RedBobcatGames I know I made another comment but the comprehensive rules already have definitions for that case: if a battle has no subtype it enters under the controller's protection and is sent to the graveyard when defeated.

[@jdnk]

It's actually quite simple. A battle is a single engagement in a larger war. By committing the resources to gain access to an enemy territory and the resources to besiege it, you can capture resources useful to the larger conflict that is that particular match of Magic.

[@RedBobcatGames]

So, what resource or terriotory are we attacking? As most Battles have nothing to do with your opponents land for instance. And what are we doing when we cast the spell? Is that the siege? Because it seems like attacking it with your cretures is the siege. It currently seems as if by casting a Battle, you're giving your opponent a resource just for you to attack it. Except it's not a resource, because your opponent can't do anything with it. I'm not sure it's that simple

[@jackcois6077]

​@@RedBobcatGames It is that simple. A lot of your flawed assumptions or misunderstandings cause these complications. Which is fair the design is unclear and poorly worded. "Invasion of Ikoria" is you declaring a siege war against the plain of Ikoria. A siege is by definition "a military operation in which enemy forces surround a town or building, cutting off essential supplies, with the aim of compelling those inside to surrender". Which aligns with the flavour of the current design, the defence points are the forces of the plane your attacking, your opponent can choose to protect and save the plane preventing you from gaining its resources. They can also allow you to take over this plane and plunder from it. In other words, “I’m sieging X plane, separate from our current battle, if you don’t stop me and protect it I will gain this resource from the plane.”. None of the wording on the card or the effect suggest you are giving your opponent a resource. You are asking them if they want to defend this plane. The only thing that does is by putting the battle on their board. It’s a bit unintuitive yes but, it’s just the easiest way to track who defends what in a multiplayer context. You have also stated multiple times that you give the opponent the battles, when you don’t, it is still under your control. It’s the same as putting pacifism on an opponent’s creature, its on their board but it is not their magic.

[@zachall1573]

To me a battle is meant to be another battle going on, maybe you open a portal to it or maybe it's going on around you. You attacking it is you sending your own minions to go aid in the battle, and your opponents can stop you from turning the tides. And when you defeat it and win the battle, you get the reard for helping them out. It's a bit weird, but that's how I choose to see it.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah, I think I'd have been on board with that if they were called "Portals" instead. But, tbh if that interpretation is accurate then I'm not sure how much fun that would be. The idea that the battle you're currently fighting is so dull that you want to start another one... yeah, weird

[@benvictim]

I know others most likely have said this... But you're not one doing the invasion/defending when doing playing a battle. They're like planeswalker cards. They represent something else "happening". With planeswalker, it's another planeswalker showing up to aid you in the battle against your opponent. With battles, it's you doing a side-quest to help with another event going on. You get rewarded for completing this event. Your opponent is trying to stop you from completing this side quest to get this reward. Edit: mechanically they are a way to delay damage. If you are swinging at the battle, you're not swinging at your opponent. Yeah they don't need to block at all. I will agree that that there is a fail tho... That other players have no reason to interact with the battle other than the attacker and defender. Who ever breaks the battle should get it.

[@RedBobcatGames]

I agree with your last point there especially. I think if they wanted to recreate the feeling of a battle, it shouldn't have been a one sided affair

[@vitormiranda201]

thematically the battles represent different battles across the multiverse, now structurally they are a mix of saga and planeswalker as it is necessary to move the defense markers to have a powerful final effect, another valid point to highlight is that it can be said to be a way of stirring up the opponent to defend that battle from the invader/conqueror who is the controller and this becomes very relevant in multiplayer especially in EDH where politics can induce your other opponents to defeat that battle to slow down the other opponent's game which is very accelerated. I see it as something relatively easy to make a comeback, including in Ravnica a tin street battle that becomes a new krenko card, for example

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah, I can see that. I just wish that some of the heavy lifting for describing the flavour of the card was handled by WotC

[@ClexYoshi]

I've always looked at Battles as such; much how like a Saga is about replaying a historical event through magical facsimile to conjure helpful elements of those historical events to aid you in your Planeswalker duels, Battles are you teleporting your foe into the chaos of a specific moment in time, so that you can sway that pivotal battle in your favor. Your Opponent is under siege and it is in his best interest to try and prevent you from making this time-altering nonsense by committing their troops and talents to preventing you from swaying that mote in time in a butterfly effect of bad news for that opponent.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Okay, now this has legs. It would explain why the battles spells you cast are named after specific battles. I still don't think the mechanics of how they work line up with that flavour, but it's the most fun idea I think I've heard so far

[@MakeVarahHappen]

I think a lot of this video is intentionally being obtuse. Like there's issues but you blow them out of proportions. I also saw the issue with Invasion of New Phyrexia being the only one where you're on the side of the invaders, but it makes sense for all the others that you play an invasion, you get an effect of the plane responding to the invasion, then you defeat the invaders. What I assume is that in the same way you have enchantments or lands or sorceries that represent a place at a specific time, you are summoning the power of Innistrad at that moment. The issue is Innistrad is being contested so to get the death curse you want you have to bring your duel to the battle. Now you and your opponent are fighting to decide the course of the battle. Defense counters represent how "stable" the battle is. We know what battles do without subtypes. I think the issue is they don't want a card type that is 100% double-sided so they made sieges to have double-sided battles. So yes, they intend to make normal battles, but not as a conspiracy that seiges suck and they know it.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Well to be fair, Obtuse is my middle name. And surely, we already have a card type to reflect summoning the power of a plane in land cards? You make some points, and what you say may very well be exactly what the designers intended. I just wish WotC would have made that intent a little clearer from the get go

[@MakeVarahHappen]

@@RedBobcatGames I think Battles could do better but it's the first outing, summoning elements of a plane can be on any card. Look at the Mirrodin Besieged enchantment for the "Soul of" cycle. You do make good points, I just think they have a bit simpler solutions.

[@TopsideCrisis346]

I think it's helpful to think of Battle cards as objectives that your creatures are trying to capture, while your opponents' creatures try to hold them. You are rewarded for capturing these objectives, but you also get an immediate bonus for choosing to go after them in the first place. Meanwhile, your opponent is faced with a decision - hold the objective, spending their own troops and resources to do so; or surrender it, and grant you an even more significant advantage.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah, but in that scenario I wish the defender got something for their efforts other than just denying you a creature or whatever. Or, let both opponents attack them for the reward, make it a real battle?

[@ender_lord1202]

First thing: You are right about how despite you initiating the siege and being the one attacking in a siege (so by all means you should be the invading phyrexian force) when you flip the card you see a elemental or something crushing phyrexians. If I had to put on the tinfoil hat I'd say that during overarching set design that MoM was meant to have "vanilla" battles that you casted and protected OR that they wanted all the battles to flip into phyrexians but the story plan changed and the invasion had to start and end in the same set. Now that I've gotten the one nice thing about the video out of the way I'm gonna tear into the rest of the video. I think your overall idea of the flavor of a match is flawed. You aren't often just in the middle of a field conjuring feral hogs and shooting lightning bolts over 15 minutes. when you cast Chart a Course or Long Rest you aren't pulling out a map or a sleeping bag and sitting across the field from your opponent, you're preparing in your sanctum and sending out henchmen to do the dirtywork for you. Maybe once upon a time in 1993 it was just like pokemon games where you had a battle right then and there and threw everything at eachother but some of the first MTG stories were about the brother's WAR and the set that took place in the real life three kingdoms period with generals and troops. Siege: A military operation where you surround a well fortified area in an attempt to capture/Destroy it. When you play a siege you declare and start an attack on a location, and the enters the battlefield triggers sieges have are mostly just for viability's sake(Although since real life sieges focus on denying resources to the besieged location maybe it entails taking those denied resources for yourself). You send your creatures to wear down the besieged location's defenses. After you successfully take the location you get what you were originally attacking for, be it a conscript/prisoner, magical items/locations, etc. The "I could have just played a creature without having to go through attacking a battle" is not a flaw of sieges but a problem with everything around them. The majority of battles were made with limited in mind(20 of them at uncommon. The majority of magic cards are just draft chaff that don't have a place anywhere else) and wizards expected you to be able to play and flip a siege on the same turn or the turn after playing it, thus needing the backsides of the card to be at best one or two mana above rate. The cards being pushed too little or not being made with how much value it can bring in commander does not make them a inherent failure. The fact that siege is a subtype isn't a grand conspiracy. It felt more like a promise that Battles can have a wide design space. If there were battles designed for commander I bet we would see something like a "royale" or "skirmish" type where it sits in the middle of the field and anybody can attack it and the person who defeats it gets to cast the backside. Maybe sieges could work more politically if the backsides affected the whole table or allowed the player that dealt the final blow to the battle get a copy of the backside.

[@RedBobcatGames]

I mean sure, but as I say most of my issues come from the confused flavour of the cards. I like they way you explain them as siegess, but if that's the case don't you feel that they should somehow wear your opponent down over time? Or somehow relfect that your opponent is actually being besieged if that's what they're meant to be? Currently, your opponent can ignore them if they wanted at no cost other than giving you an extra creature. This still doesn't line up for me as what a siege should feel like

[@mueezadam8438]

Sorry if this has been stated before: I agree that the official wording and presentation lead to a nonsensical (if not impossible) interpretation, but I believe there is a rather organic narrative that Battle cards (specifically Sieges) tell. When you play the Battle card, it represents opening a new front of the ongoing duel. You spend resources to engage in that front, hence mana cost, and you ‘attack’ it to contribute to the siege/battle. When the Battle is destroyed, it of course stands in for the idea that you’ve won the engagement

[@RedBobcatGames]

Okay, but what does that mean though? When you open a new front what actually happens? Are you creating a new dummy version of your opponent to attack? And locking away behind it a creature you want as a reward? That's my issue, like what is actually happening when you cast these cards

[@mueezadam8438]

@@RedBobcatGames I kind of pictured it like hopping across space and time like some kinda comic book crossover event. Most permanents represent objects in space and time anyway (ex. young planeswalkers). With sieges your opponent can either stop you from collecting the reward or let it happen as they focus on destroying other parts of your power base (lands, creatures, etc)

[@RedBobcatGames]

From a lot of comments I'm getting the vibe most people see them as portals. i think had they been named that instead, I'd probably had much less of a problem with them

[@MaikuTempest]

Another great useful video 😊

[@RedBobcatGames]

Thanks dude. Next week I plan on moaning a little less. We'll see how that goes

[@partyballoonsnorwich2122]

Thank you Red Bobcat! Some very interesting points! A x 🎈

[@RedBobcatGames]

Thank you very much. Glad you enjoyed. Next one comes out on Monday

[@partyballoonsnorwich2122]

@@RedBobcatGames Looking forward to watching it! Thank you!

[@TheEpicChicken]

I can't believe you ragged on my absolute favorite card, Invasion of New Phrexia, a card that definitely makes loads of sense

[@RedBobcatGames]

I mean, if pointing out all of somethings flaws is ragging on it...

[@thediamondjames]

Yeah it's a good card blipblop blip blop shzam now you're a unicorn!!

[@StarjuuM]

I'd imagine the theme to be that you are in a war. Wars usually are not a single fight, but multiple battles. In your example "invasion of Ikora" is one battle in your war. The battle being a siege means you send out troops to fight a siege battle, where your units try to overcome the opponents defenders. And if you win the battle i.E your troops that are attacking the enemy (in this case a siege battle) win the battle you secured some resources that will help you win the war. Kinda like WC3 reigns of chaos first mission, where your main goal is to drive out the orc slavers, but helping the dwarves defeat a dragon gives you riflemen and a fire orb. So as a commander you use ressources and troops, to win a single battle in your war to get a strategical advantage.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Sure, but then surely if your end goal is to get the resources, why not just spend the mana and summon them? I think my main issue lies somewhere between fighting the battle, and having to spend mana to cast the battle in the first place. It feels like a weird disconnect to me

[@StarjuuM]

Thematically it makes sense though. Imagine being in a war and the enemies have fuel sources. To gain the ressources for yourself you gotta allocate ressources i.E troops, supplies, weapons, etc. So you have a initial cost, setup a siege and then you gotta fight the battle. You win and in return you claim the fuel as prize. Same in MTG. You pay a cost (your mana being the equivalent for being your troops, supplies etc) to setup a siege and then you gotta win the battle so you can claim the prize.@@RedBobcatGames

[@RedBobcatGames]

Surely your creatures represent your troops though? And your artifacts would be your supplies. Also, your opponent doesn't have any resources to gain until you cast the spell. So what specifically happens when you cast a battle? Because it currently seems to imply that the first step in casting a battle is to give your opponent a free resource, which you then have to attack with your creatures (troops here), as the battle cards don't attack themselves? All seems odd, and could probably have been avoided if you just gave yourself the resource when you cast it instead

[@Kazz1187]

I like battles. Hopefully the new battles will make a little more nuance

[@RedBobcatGames]

You know what? That's a perfect word for what they're lacking. Nuance

[@Zarbon000]

Battles are such a Mess. 😂 It’s okay that some things they try didn’t work the first time around. Case in point Battles.

[@RedBobcatGames]

I completely agree actually. A lot of people seemingly willing to die on the hill that Battle cards were fine actually. But I don't think so, and that's okay

[@markreynolds3423]

Thanks for the info

[@RedBobcatGames]

No worries my dude, any time

[@prod.fffeedback7679]

watching the part of you trying to explain the flavor of what a battle is while tripping was so funny holy shit

[@RedBobcatGames]

Thanks man, glad you enjoyed!

[@ilogvideo]

Battle - Skirmish (Exile this battle after it has been attacked once but not destroyed) ; Battle - Defense (Player must block to defend this battle) ; Battle - Duel (only one defender and attacker may engage in this battle) As a concept, I like battle cards because it has potential for flavor, but yeah the mechanics doesn't make sense.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Lets see what they do in the future. Like I said, I'd happily bet more subtypes were coming

[@ilogvideo]

@@RedBobcatGames It could be better if the battle can be attacked/defended by both players and the rewards could be won by either, making it a sort of a minigame. The etb effects of the battle would benefit the caster of course since he used the mana to open this "portal" to the battle or something.

[@AlteredNova04]

This is my best attempt to justify the battle card type thematically: When you cast a battle spell, you are opening a stable portal to another plane where the battle is already happening. You do this because you made an alliance with the commander of one side of that battle; you help them win, and they'll send reinforcements back through the portal to assist you. When your opponent "defends" the battle, they are really just blocking your troops from passing through the portal because they don't want you to get those reinforcements.

[@mutes8697]

Quick summary of the video you can’t attack a battle

[@mutes8697]

Your welcome for saving 17 minutes

[@RedBobcatGames]

Well that's not what Wizard's have said...

[@davidbrasher3595]

Thank you for making this video! I am glad I am not the only one who feels this way. I was totally confused and annoyed when I got some battle cards in the packs I opened. They made no sense to me, and I ended up taking all of them out of my highly themed fun decks.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Pretty much my feels exactly

[@noobknights]

I've figured it out. When you play a Battle, it is YOU who is invading THEIR plane. They are not allied with you. You attack the inhabitants of that plane with the goal of taking it over (or at least some territory on that plane). Your opponent sends assistance to defend it. Perhaps they are aligned with that plane or they just aren't as cold-hearted as you. You break down their defenses and, now that you have total control over the plane, are able to command their inhabitants and make them bend to your will. Aaaand the on-ETB effect is supposed to be you using your mastery of that color of magic to invoke a spell of that color belonging to that plane. Because perhaps being on a plane gives you access to its own "spellbook" or tends to imbue its thematics into your magic through... geologically... resonant... mana... frequencies 🤌 Except for Teferi. But he's on a Mythic Battle so the flavor is allowed to be more complicated than the Rare Battles.

[@RedBobcatGames]

I like it. In fact I may have even loved it if Wizard's had explained that themselves haha

[@rain4825]

In this case it fails in the depiction of events: on one side the invading force, generally phyrexia, is who you're siding with, but then it makes little sense that the etb effect on the front side of the battle to be themed towards the invaded place. If we are phyrexia and we're attacking, then the effect should reflect a phyrexian attack tactic of some sort. Then, once you've defeated the battle, you should get a reward depicting your side that triumphed over your foe. But wotc did the opposite: I'm phyrexia and I'm besieging this random plane, I break their defenses and win this battle, so then why the flip side of the card depict the ennemy being victorious and having an ennemy aligned creature show up? If I'm phyrexia and then win over dominaria, I'm okay with the spoils of battle being an angel or whatever, but depict it having been corrupted by phyrexia or working for the victor in any ways. The art of battles is counter to the mechanics: once the battle is won by the assaillants it shows us that the result is that actually the defenders won. The problem comes in part with the ties of the mechanic to the narrative, where they wanted their dramatic reversals to show in gameplay, but I think they failed on this point.

[@okeytay4]

That ending skit was freaking perfect!

[@RedBobcatGames]

Thank you!

[@yummines]

I think battles work fairly well in 1v1, but in multiplayer they're basically just worse versions of aura curses that reward players for attacking them. The only incentive the other players have to attack a battle is if the person who played it makes a deal with them. I do agree they're pretty awkward thematically though. I think the intention may be that since the player is a planeswalker, you're entering a separate battle that's happening with the reward being a result of you helping that side.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah, I just wish that was made clearer if it's the case

[@cptmachine]

Thematically I see a battle as your planes Walker opening a portal to a another plane where a key battle is taking place. The effect of the portal also warps the battlefield much like an enchantment. You can send your monsters through the portal to tilt the battle in your favour and then return with a reward. Your opponent will try to stop you as don’t want you gaining the advantage.

[@RedBobcatGames]

I'd be on board with this. Makes me wish they'd been called "Portals" instead

[@XKrlosOblivionX]

Battles represent the concept of warfare... When you attack them, you're aiding your army defeat the other army, and when you do, you get a reward. It's not hard to understand.

[@RedBobcatGames]

But what specifically are you attacking? Because it's not your opponent, and it's not your opponents creatures. I still don't get it. Thank you for the feedback though

[@quelfth4413]

An attempt to explain what playing a battle is. The way I think of this is that when you are casting the battle, what you really wanted to cast was the thing on the back side of the battle, but when you tried to acquire it or set it up or whatever, the opponent intervened and prevented you from being able to do so and so the site where you were trying to do that thing is now under siege. So there's now a battle going on over the fate of this thing you were attempting to do. However, you did manage to get something done before the siege started and this is what the ETB effect of the battle represents.

[@RedBobcatGames]

I like this, but I feel my issue with it is the zero interaction your opponent gets to have in the scenario. You're basically playing Solitaire when you cast a Battle, and forcing your Opponent to make actions they may not want to. (For instance defending a site). Just very odd that you get to dictate your opponents battle tactics when you cast the card

[@NewSchoolPOKERstrat]

Im looking forward to your take on the “summoning of Iron Man” when the Marvel set comes out.

[@RedBobcatGames]

This comment hurt my soul to think about

[@Robozimal]

Finally someone said what I thought

[@RedBobcatGames]

Ayyyyyy, this is the perfect comment haha

[@garethhughes4437]

That is some really good points, many of which I hadn't considered. Why do we defeat a battle! Good video

[@RedBobcatGames]

Thank you very much, glad you enjoyed it

[@Xhosant]

I don't wanna start a fight or anything, but By my understanding, MtG is about pitting conjured forces against each other. Land cards are places you've been to, and open portals to as a way to draw mana. You use that mana to manufacture facsimiles of creatures you have witnessed. In that context, to play a battle card is to conjure up a historical event's memory and force your opponent to reenact it, as a form of ritual. If I reenact the Siege of Ikoria ritualistically, a facsimile of Zilortha the Apex will manifest under my control. The *nature* of that ritual, being a siege, allows it to be opposed, if someone were to take the natural position of opposing the event.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Right, but first you don't get a facsimile of Zilortha when you cast it, you have to first defeat whatever it is you've cast to do that. And second, if you wanted Zilortha and are spending mana to get it... why not just cast a creature spell? If Battles are reenactments of historical events, then what are Sagas? If Battles are a ritual with a lasting effect on your opponent, then what are Enchantments? If Battles are you besieging your enemy with creatures, then what is the game at large?

[@Xhosant]

@@RedBobcatGamesI would answer that, first off, the reason to use the mana to enact the ritual instead of the result is, that's just the requirement of the result. Same reason you can't get the last step of a Saga directly, or can't cast a card pre-transformed. And in all likelihood, a different version of the same creature exists out there, with different capabilities or costs. So, this is just one way to do one version of the task. What you cast is not unlike what a Saga is when cast, and then it creates for you something, not unlike how a Saga would. Which brings us to differences. Sagas are a retelling, while Battles are a reenactment - you don't normally have to interact with a Saga, just let it happen (though you can certainly hasten in, often in flavor-nonsensical ways - are you proliferating the told-ness of chapters?) Similarly, an enchantment isn't usually something that progresses towards a final result (except sagas, as above, and potentially other individual examples). And, to differentiate them from those, battles are specifically a ritual that you do have to start as an enchantment or saga, but then need to make them progress, and you can only do that indirectly, through creatures. Further, it is a ritual that, annoyingly, allows others to intervene. This last bit is a thematic plus, in my book. A Saga is a story being retold. An enchantment that gathers counters is an ongoing ritual. But a Battle (and a Siege at that) is a ritual that is, metaphysically and at its core, about conflict - someone tries to destroy something, and someone else may try to oppose them. You can't prevent that and get results any more than you can forgo paying an additional cost of another card, like discarding or paying life. So, in the scope of the game: the game represents a fight between two Planeswalkers, tapping into memories of their travels against each other. A Battle card represents a ritualistic attempt to build up an advantage, much like an enchantment or an artifact. Much like those, the enemy can meddle, but unlike those, there's a bit of built-in interaction involved. (It might help to contextualize this if you think about the fact that the opponent you give this card to doesn't *have* to defend it. They can just decide to let you waste attacks, effectively boosting their hp, if they believe the payoff isn't worth it. Or, in other words, they just have the opportunity to prevent your creatures from partaking in the 'siege' ritual, if they're so inclined, and controlling the card is merely the proof that you chose them as the only one who can do that.)

[@Xhosant]

@@RedBobcatGames alternatively, if you would like to subscribe to a more direct interpretation of playing a card, you spend resources to open a portal to the siege itself, creatures attacking it are reinforcements to that event, blocking your creatures is blocking your reinforcements from reaching that portal, and the payoff is assistance offered in return once the day is won on that other side.

[@RedBobcatGames]

I can see where you're coming from. I'd want to retool the cards to make the flavour work better though. First that name has to go. Call them Portals, instead. Second, a portal is just on going magic so make the cards an Enchantment subtype. And next, if they're to reenact a battle I'd probably have them function more like Sagas, but instead of turns have them tick over by combat damage maybe? Or I'd make them like Planechase cards, effecting the ground for everyone equally

[@Xhosant]

@@RedBobcatGames i would say, the solid reason not to make them enchantments would be to avoid removal, including sacrifice by the controller. Ticking up might have some unexpected interactions, so ticking down towards a 'culmination' would be the way to go, I think. Ultimately, you could reword everything, and that might even be an improvement. But what you're looking at ends up being a siege that creatures 'partake' in, unless 'intercepted', trying to 'break' the siege, my removing 'momentum' counters with their damage, or what have you. But then the problem emerges - all these words are proxies for concepts already in the ruleset, and they have to be defined as 'the same for all intents and purposes' to avoid unintentional buffs or nerfs (what if a creature is sacrificed after it attacks, or if it doesn't deal damage in a turn, but 'partaking' (which is pretty much it) doesn't count?) You get wonkiness unless the creatures 'partake' by attacking, or if they are perfect synonyms, at which point you are just bloating your terminology. Worth it? YMMV. Providing benefits to other players participating, either claimed or as an option by the caster, would actually be an improvement, as an incentive to help or a dilemma thereof. I'll surely give you that. But slapping an optional chore/bonus hp buffer on one enemy, while you are motivated to burn through it, is not a bad dynamic to create.

[@charlieread7097]

Great vid! And yeah battle cards do suck, although there is now a physical card depicting Zilortha because of them however would have been much better if it was just a normal creature card

[@thediamondjames]

What gets me is that phrexia shouldn't even exist and was conjured into existence just to usher in new mechanics

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah, Universes Beyond has some weird stuff going on. I'm sure I'll do a video on that at some point

[@mountainghoti1671]

​@@RedBobcatGames Ugh. I'm split, because I've liked some of the ideas. The crazy thing is, each IP has been seemingly treated with love and respect. However, Mtg is now just like (fill in the blank) Monopoly, where there's a million versions. Cool to see some things, but Megatron vs Eleven vs Ryu is wrong.

[@Stormagedom]

Maybe the best word for this is the Dan Olson classic "Ludonarrative Dissonance"

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah. I should have 100% used that in the video

[@TheZzuzy]

Thematically, they could have done something like make the cards keeps or castles and have them give an advantage the one defending it, like add a mana or give you the monarch each upkeep. That would make more sense and give someone a reason to defend it. When the battles are defeated they shoud reverse these benefits to avoid dragging games to long and give an advantage to the one playing the battle.

[@brewskimckilgore6796]

the advantage (theoretically) is that your opponent invests attackers into the battle instead of your face. this could keep alive for the elusive "one more turn" it always seems to take to win lol

[@TheZzuzy]

@@brewskimckilgore6796 But its proven that's not enough

[@RedBobcatGames]

Like a card version of King of the Hill? That's quite a cool idea, I like it

[@Zarbon000]

😂

[@LilskeevsGaming]

Super cool find! Amazing vid💪🏼💯

[@RedBobcatGames]

Thank you very much, glad you enjoyed :)

[@TheJadeFist]

Double Sided cards ALL SUCK, just from the start right there. I really wish, Wizards would just f-ing stop making them. You can't put them in your deck, unless you proxy it, or use sleeves, but then for sleeves you gotta take it out and turn it around is annoying and damages the card. So you sideboard it with a proxy, but you can't really sleeve the side board because it still has to flip over, and god forbid you make a werewolf or vampire deck with everything flips every turn, what are you gonna proxy 30/60 cards in the deck? I just hate them. Maybe not so much for battles but other double sided cards, can have completely different names and card type on either side, thus making it problematic to sort into your collection. They're just a physical nuisance.

[@RedBobcatGames]

See, I weirdly 100% agree. But my love for Werewolves allows me to endure the inconvenience. Wizard's really tested my limits by changing how they transform not printing a Werewolf commander deck in GOD DAMN MIDNIGHT HUNT OF ALL PLACES. But I'm calm. I'm calm. I love werewolves and can put up with it. For now.

[@TheJadeFist]

@@RedBobcatGames The original Kamigawa block had transforming cards, and they were perfectly fine, because both halves were on the front of the card.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Sure, but if memory serves me correctly I believe the feedback was that people hated those. I imagine WotC would have been looking to steer clear of doing them like that again, which is a shame. I always thought the art work was really beautiful. Would love to see them return

[@TheJadeFist]

@@RedBobcatGames I kinda hear that some what now days, but I don't remember any one complaining back in the day. The old kamigawa flippers were kinda cool. Jushi Apprentice still finds itself in my decks today. At least one deck, I have an Island Sanctuary deck and he lets me draw while skipping my draw step.

[@catoticneutral]

I think of sieges as side quests you can send your creatures on to eventually make an ally or gain an artifact or rare spell that would cost more mana if you cast it yourself, although that doesn't explain why starting the side quest immediately gives you a sorcery-like effect. In the case of the sieges printed so far, the "side quest" is to help fight the Phyrexians and your reward is an allegiance with the plane you helped defend, or if you're playing a Phyrexian deck, the quest is to lay siege to the plane, and the reward is indoctrinating the plane's creatures into Phyrexia. I get what they were going for but I agree the execution is a little clunky. I would have preferred a version of sieges more akin to the suspend mechanic. Suspend is an alternative cost mechanic that essentially lets you trade mana for time, a suspended card sits in exile with a few time counters on it, on your upkeep you remove a time counter and then cast it if that was the last counter. Sieges could have been similar to that, except instead of the counters going away one at a time automatically, you removed the counters by attacking or otherwise damaging the siege, and your opponent could interfere if they wanted. Basically instead of trading time for mana you'd be trading attackers for mana. Also they should probably be called quests or something instead of battles. Giving it to a specific opponent for them to "defend" without them controlling it is also kind of confusing, I frequently see new players get confused by curse cards in the same way. I get why they did it that way though, having attacking creatures without any specific defending player but also allowing opponents to block them would probably be a rules nightmare. Edit after actually finishing the video: The next time they print new battle cards, they're gonna work differently, AND they'll all have a new subtype in case they want to rework them again.

[@RedBobcatGames]

You make a lot of interesting suggestions. I'm honestly starting to think your suspect idea is the way to go. I think if they really wanted to explore a new space, they should have made battles a true new card type, in addition to spells and land. Perhaps, as you suggestion, one that doesn't require mana to play at all but works in it's own zone like suspend.

[@triggerman7]

Great video, and yeah, these things are just chock full of ludonarrative dissonance

[@RedBobcatGames]

God damn, that's a good word. I should remake this video and steal it

[@wilagaton9627]

I guess how I would rework Battles would be: >think of Battles as a different conflict that players are made aware of. >instead of playing it to your opponent's side of the field, it would be played on both sides of the field, shared by both players (in a multi player game, it would just be in a shared area within all players' field). >players would then "participate" in said Battle. Then it would be like "I'll send my creature to participate in the Invasion of (x)". >as stated in the video, it would be best to give the defending player a reward for defending the battle. Draw a card, gain life, create an x/x creature token, something that would incentivice defending the battle. >also, the player/s that didnt cast the Battle can also attack said Battle. But if they lowered its defenses to 0, they dont get the flipped creature, the Battle is simply placed to the owner's graveyard. Just my immediate thoughts.

[@RedBobcatGames]

I like your idea that the card goes to the GY if attacked by someone else. That adds a fun element, and hopefully won't punish the person casting it too much if they don't win it. I just want to know what the battle actually represents though. Like, have we summoned a big flag on the group that everyone is running over to grab? Or is it more like one of the cars from Street Fighter than everyone wants to attack till it explodes?

[@stuartm7009]

I don't think they will just ditch the subtype, rather bring out more types of battle, like the playtest card from the minneapolis un-known event: Occupation of llanowar (1G) Battle - Control Point (Any opponent may attack this battle. When an opponent defeats this, exile it, then put it onto the battlefield under that player's control with 4 defense counters. This is different from sieges!) At the beginning of your combat step, put a +1/+1 counter to target creature you control.

[@RedBobcatGames]

We'd have to see it in practice, but that at least makes a bit more sense that you're defending the thing you cast yourself

[@damnerd]

I feel like a better interpretation of battles is that you open a portal to some other place to retrieve something that will help you defeat your opponent. Say for example that you'd like to have Teferi help you kick your opponents ass, but you know he's busy counter attacking new phyrexia, so you open a portal to that battle, help him win, and after winning you get him to help you. But your opponent won't stay quiet waiting for you to achieve that. They're gonna block your access to the portal so that the battle keeps going and you never get your reward. Also, a siege is a battle in which the attacking side surrounds the defending side into a restricted region, and tries to make them surrender. Siege weapons are weapons used in sieges to break fortifications and force the defending side into surrender faster. That's what the sub type is referring to.

[@RedBobcatGames]

So, the flavour of a Siege is that you've summoned a big box to contain your opponent, just for the purpose of attacking it? Still feels weird. Big fan of your portal explanation. I wish WotC had just come out and stated that was the case to start with as I'd of had much less of a problem with them from the get go

[@JakobEslinger]

First time i encountered a battle was in arena. Had no idea what it was or why it was on my side of the feild. So i just ignored it and just kept playing. I won so im still not sure wtf battles do. I thought we were currently in a battle so the concept ia weird

[@RedBobcatGames]

I can't imagine you're alone in that experience. They don't make a lot of themeatic sense, so mechanically are harder to grasp imo

[@PaulGaither]

I am enjoying this video and all of your videos that I have seen so much, and I am only halfway through this.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Why thank you very much. I really appriciate it

[@Lightn0x]

I think the thematical sense of creatures "attacking" battles to "get rid of" them and opponents "defending" them with their creatures is: you "send" your creatures into the battle to fight for you, and your opponent can "send" their own to fight in said battle against your creatures. If your creatures outpower the opponent's, you can "win" the battle getting a reward (flipping the card). It's just that but translates into magic lingo. It also doesn't make sense that planeswalkers become less loyal by casting their spells, or that they go to the graveyard when they leave you, but it is what it is.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah, I could see a "Capture the flag" style mechanic working. Maybe you tap a creature and leave it on the card to defend or something?

[@noobknights]

WotC has always wanted to add "lanes" Imagine if instead, when a Battle came down, each player declared which creatures they were sending over to the battle. When you cast a creature, you declare if it's in an existing Battle or not. Instead of attacking the battle, you still attack each other. The first person to deal combat damage through that lane equal to the number in the corner flips it and gets to cast it. There's a chance your opponent can get the effect now, but you can now strategize for board states where your opponent has nothing to block with, or would open themselves up to a massive attacker outside the battle. Which arguably would make them more likely to return value than they are now. And the best part is, all of this can be done without changing any of the text.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah, that's not a bad idea. You have a limited number of total lanes, but if you cast a new one it just replaces the text of a previous one. That could work

[@wickederebus]

Planeswalkers were basically additional Health Points for the caster with an upside. Battles are free HP for the enemy, but with a potential upside for the caster.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Oh yeah for sure. I just wish Battles had made as much narrative sense as Planeswalkers do

[@matthewkelly6962]

When Battles where first announced, i was under the impression when you played a Battle you would receive some form of continuous effect that you would have to keep your opponent from destroying to stop the effect.....i myself like some of the Battle cards but i think they would be better if designed the way i stated.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah, I agree. But I feel like we don't need a new card for that though. An enchantment subtype would have worked just as well

[@MrAndromedean]

I had to watch 5 videos to finally find this one which helps me, a new player, both understand the mechanics and simultaneous still not understand why the mechanics. Good work on this. I thought i smelled crap and I was right. : D

[@RedBobcatGames]

Ha! Thank you, glad I could help

[@spagandhi]

A change i would have made is to flavor them as "objectives". You declare an objective on your opponents side of the battlefield and flipping them would be known as seizing. Capturing this objective gives you your reward.

[@RedBobcatGames]

See, and the art could be of battle plans or those weird chess set style field layouts you see in medieval recreations. That could work

[@lumioak3260]

You are paying resources to find the castle, fortification, etc. Your opponent find out and can try to prevent you from taking it. If you successfully take it you free/find/revive an ancient creature, planeswalker, artifact, or learn a ritual(enchantment/sorcery/instant). In Multiplayer, anyone should be able to block your creatures when you attack. If they are fine with you just having it then they can just not block. i don't see any problems other than is goes to a specific player. I didn't know about these previously and find it really cool and thematic.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Well that's good. And I think your suggestions would go a long way to improving them. I also think anyone should be able to block for it. It would solve a lot of issues

[@varsoonhks3211]

I don't really have any of these hang ups. I understand that the language of 'Attack'ing a Battle is rough and I agree on that. Thematically, though, they make perfect sense to me. As a Planeswalker, all your spells are just recreations of characters, creatures, and events from history, using mana to form them. You aren't *literally* summoning Ragavan the monkey from another plane--you're creating a mana-generated representation of him to fight for you. Battles work the same way--you aren't literally invading a plane; you're using mana to recreate a historic battle. When you 'Attack' a battle, you're fighting in that battle to progress it towards its historic outcome. You are fighting your battles;' you're winning YOUR wars. They are small-scale skirmishes compared to the larger planeswalker duel that is a game of Magic. The enemy planeswalker can devote resources towards stopping you from playing out that history. If the battle is fully fought to its outcome, though, you reap the rewards of it. It's similar to a Saga in this way--something historical that plays out over multiple turns with a culmination. Unlike a Saga, though, it's not an inevitable outcome but one you have to struggle towards. It's also, crucially, not an enchantment. As for the Siege subtype, note the italics reminder text that denotes Sieges enter and opponents protect them. Sieges are meant to be the baseline for how battles work--in the future, we may see battle subtypes that aren't Sieges and therefore your opponents don't have to protect them. I can already imagine something that everyone on the board can attack, all fighting over the rewards or to avoid the consequences. I can imagine Battles that you have to defend where the frontside is beneficial but the flipside is some sort of Curse effect. By making Siege the default archetype, there's room to actually design much more in the space of what a Battle can represent but no matter what there is a thematic baseline : This is a historical event that must be struggled over. I personally really like them from an narrative point of view : They represent these historical conflicts on different planes. Unless you're playing Planeschase, that sense of being on a specific plane can often feel lost unless you're playing something like a plane-themed deck or limited.

[@RedBobcatGames]

I think part of the issue I have is that they aren't enchantments. If they were, I'd still have an issue with the fact that you've essentially cast a resource that your opponent has to protect, but can't access (which I think is weird. Just cast the resource on yourself) BUT I'd at least throw my hands up and say "Well it's just telling a story like a saga". But they aren't doing that, because they aren't enchantments. So then I have to ask, well what are they doing? And I think it's unclear. I agree with you in your interpretation of what's probably supposed to be happening, but that takes some head canon effort on the player end to get there, and if it is that and we're correct then why not just say that to begin with?

[@varsoonhks3211]

@@RedBobcatGames I think it's significant in the way that Planeswalkers having their own typing is significant. Its functionality fills a playspace that wasn't in the game yet. I wonder if it even grew out of how Planeswalkers work, given they are essentially the functional opposite--ie; the player who plays it defends it, forcing the opponent to choose between attacking player vs walker. WotC definitely could have done a better job with presenting them, that's for sure. In play, they tend to work fine enough. Flavor-wise, I don't know it's much a stretch of headcanon to divine they're meant to represent these significant battles across the multiverse. It makes me wonder, had Battles been around for years now, would cards like Akroan War have been Battles instead? I'm mostly curious where they stand as far as theme design going forward, since most sets focus on singular planes and I can't imagine printing even five battles in a set unless you're representing a wide history at play. Then again, if Battles can also represent smaller scale skirmishes, then even the new Karlov set could have cards evocative of something like Aurelia raiding an Arachnos den or the titular murder, even. I guess we'll have to see.

[@RedBobcatGames]

@@varsoonhks3211You raise another good point. I'd forgotten this, but when they were introduced as a new card type I had expected them to be in every set. I thought at the time that printing a set without them would be like printing a set without Instants or Artifacts. If they were a subtype, I don't think it would have mattered. Not every set needs Sagas for instance. But a whole type on their own? Thier absence is odd. Things like this new Case card make me think there's no reason these Battle couldn't have been Enchantments, and probably would have been better if they had

[@varsoonhks3211]

@@RedBobcatGames Yeah, if they stay as rarely printed as they have been so far, I probably would prefer they just be enchantments. I guess it's one more thing to power up Tarmogoyf. We don't get Planeswalkers with every set, do we? Then again, Planeswalkers are awkward in that they traditionally occupy 5 or less Mythic slots in a set. Unless Battles are meant to serve similar rarity, I don't get the point in seeing them as rarely as we have. It actually reminds me of when WotC considered making Purple a color back in Planar Chaos. They eventually decided it'd be too awkward to add a one-off color that'd strangely exist as rules-legal for the rest of the game's history. Battles aren't quite that bad but it would be really weird to not see them get any support for a year+

[@RedBobcatGames]

I know we were getting planeswalkers frequently enough that they'd said they're backing away from them as they're a bit much. I'm not sure that was every set, but it felt like it. And I actually sort of wish they did print purple to be honest. I'm not sure I liked the pitch of "Caves", cos I feel that was kind of covered by mountains. I could see desert working. Or even an urban area. And am I remembering right, but didn't they once print a set that didn't have any red cards in it? Or was that fever dream? That's a fun concept I'd like to see again (or for the first time if I made it up)

[@Level_1_Frog]

You have to remember that so far there's only been 'siege' battles so far, and they could and will add more subtypes to that that could change how you use them completely. They could have a contested battle zone that everyone can attack to gain control of it, or have defensive battles that are very powerful but that can be directly attacked by your opponents. I think it's an interesting type that needs a bit of room to breath and expand, give us more battle cards and let us experiment with what they can do, before writing them off completely.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Perhaps the problems with them will come down to Siege entirely, but somehow I think they're more of an issue than that. The fact they're a core card type but haven't appeared in any sets since is an indication of that I suspect. It would be like if a set got printed without Instants in it now. Very strange

[@Level_1_Frog]

@@RedBobcatGames that is true, but you know how weird wizards are with their '2 years in advanced' policy. They said that there probably won't be any new battles for another year or so, I guess they wanted feedback from players to see how people felt about them, but it also shows they didn't have a lot of confidence in the card type to begin with. I think they're a cool design in 1v1 for sure, but yeah in EDH they're definitely a bit weird and clunky. But there is a way they could make them more fun in commander- like say there's a battle that gives you 'an effect', and on the back half it's a Wrath of God. To me that's pretty cool in multiplayer, cuz then there's an incentive for the person that's defending it to either let it get destroyed and reset the board, or keep it alive while they're ahead, and then there's also reasons for other players to want to pop it as well. It doesn't have to be a Wrath either, it could be a wheel, or land destruction, or everyone getting booned or boned depending on the game state. I think there's a lot of cool stuff you can do with sieges, they just, well, haven't yet.

[@RedBobcatGames]

You basically said everything I think on the matter too. And I agree with what you said about it showing Wizard's lack of confidence in them. To me they just felt like a marketing stunt. I honestly don't see why these are their own card type but Sagas aren't. I honestly think these could just as easily have been enchantments and they would have worked just as well

[@Krunschy]

I love how battles play and flavor wise they also make sense to me. I was sceptical at first but after playing with them, they quickly became one of my favorite card types to play with. That being said, I'm still quite disappointed by the card type, simply because of how obscure it's become after seeing print in just a single set and then being forgotten about. However sadly there's no easy fix to this at this point: While it could have been addressed by printing a few battles each set, this comes with the problem of the sub type. While the general idea of creating design space through the sub type is really quite smart, designers can't exactly just print 2-3 new battles with a new sub type into the next set and expect people to get what it's about. Simultaneously they can't just print a few Sieges into the next sets either, because then this card type becomes even more synonymous with this sub type. The one thing they could and should've done to establish the card type is to have the subsequent releases after MOM each properly introduce a sub type. Only once they got that going they can occasionally print battles into sets like it's done with planeswalkers. I reckon they're probably at that right now, but just way too spread out.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah, I agree. If they were a subtype of another card, like Sagas are it wouldn't be weird that they're not in every set. But they're meant to be a new super-type, so skipping them is like skipping Sorceries. Very strange

[@Krunschy]

@@RedBobcatGames Don't mean to be pedantic, but just as a quick fyi: Battle is a card types, not a super type. Super types are stuff like snow, legendary or basic.

[@hugmonger]

The way battles SHOULD work is 1 - I cast it and get either a big creature token or a bunch of small creature tokens 2 - I assign a defender who gets something each upkeep or each of their upkeeps/end steps. Maybe they get creature tokens based on its health, or just a static number 3 - Defeating the Battle gives a neat Enchantment like effect This would represent a bespoke Siege or Battle where invoking it would start a massive conflict. Multiple players attacking it would keep that player from getting too much value. Why an Enchantment afterwards? This is the sort of Cathartic Reward for winning, like a "Lets Show Those Baddies What For" moment. So, for example "Invasion of Normandy WW2 Battle - Siege (6 Loyalty) When this battle enters the battlefield, assign an opponent as a defender. When Invasion of Normandy enters the Battlefield its owner creates X 2/2 White Soldier tokens, where X is the number of creatures they control. At the beginning of each Combat Phase Invasion of Normandy's defender creates a 2/2 Soldier token When Defeated flip Invasion of Normandy _____ D-Day Enchantment Creatures you control have Haste, First Strike, and +2/+0" Now you have a reason to play it. If you think you can break trough quickly you can get a pretty substantial buff to your guys cuz +2/+0 and first strike is amazing, plus you get a bunch of 4/2 First Striking Soldiers. However an opponent might be able to defend it better than you think and take advantage of your poor decision making, and start using the fact that you picked this fight to overwhelm the board with their own 2/2 soldiers. Other players might want to swing in as well because it involves every combat step not just yours or theirs. The wording can use work, and the effect is kinda bad but its a template for a better thematic design.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah, I think one of the biggest issues (aside from the name) is the lack of incentive to defend it outside of preventing your opponent from getting something

[@pizzarhino]

had to pause at 15 minutes in when you say like a real battle it can be attacked was just very good delivery

[@RedBobcatGames]

Haha, thank you!

[@joshuaturner4602]

So, for me the way I seem them is as follows: Battles represent a pivotal engagement in a larger ongoing conflict, in the same way sagas represent stories or other historical events. With the exception of the battle of new phyrexia, the phyrexians are the invaders but I think it is important to think about it in terms of what set it came from, the reason why the battle of new phyrexia is different from all the rest is it is the one that chronologically happens last, where the forces across the multiverse have arrayed themselves to bring the fight to the enemies doors. The reason why the cards have an ETB effect is because that is your opening salvo in the engagement, the reason why they turn into creatures when you Win the battle is because that creature is there holding the line against the enemy assault. So it wasnt that ephara suddenly appears when you win the battle for theros but rather that She was occupied trying to hold Theros together and once the phyrexian threat was successfully repelled she is "Freed up" to help you with whatever your problems are (Ditto for Teferi who once they have successfully conquered new phyrexia and diffused the threat there is now a wizard who owes you a favour) You hand them to your opponent to defend because they are representing the opposing force who can prevent you from winning the battle by committing additional manpower to their invasion. I think it is possible that the cards were designed to conservatively for the number of hoops you have to jump through, I think the core idea is that your opponent will want to defend the battle if the upside for you winning (and I think that the thematics of the card would be clearer if when you reduced the counters on a battle to 0 they say you "Win" the battle) was better.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Sure, but I'm still getting stuck on the flavour. Like you mentioned Sagas for instance, and I feel that's an apt comparison. But, the art work of Saga's does the heavy lifting as they're all depicting different objects which embody the events of the tale. So, as they're enchantments you might imagine the caster pointing of a stained glass window, or tablet or tapestry depicting a tale, and then using their magic to make the events of that tale play out once more. What happens when you cast a battle though? From a flavour perspective?

[@joshuaturner4602]

@@RedBobcatGames So this was not something that I had thought much about before you asked me mostly because the flavour text doesnt matter, we can have a game of magic where we both control 15 differernt versions of chandra on both sides of the board. In the context of march of the machines, I would say that you opened a portal to new phyrexia, or theros, or dominaria or whatever and then made an agreement to help the non-phyrexian side of the conflict win the war. Which makes sense if you consider it in a mass effect 3 style game where you travel the multiverse and build a force capable of stopping the physicians. So for example you and another planeswalker are having a battle, you open a portal to Fiora, and make a deal with Marchesa (the ever ambitous queen) if you help her repel the phyrexians, she will help you with your battle (represented by the card transforming into Marchesa) and as a token of her good faith she does a little something for you when the portal gets opened (Represented by the battles ETB effect). Your Opponent planeswalker sees you make this deal with Marchesa and while he definately doesnt want to make a deal with the phyrexians (as they will try to compleat him if he did) he doesnt want you to get marchesa's help either which is why he may commit his forces to stop you from getting her assistance.

[@RedBobcatGames]

That's as good an explanation as I've heard so far. I wish WotC would say something similar. But what I think I'm really hearing from you is we should bring back the Planeswalker Uniqueness, and if that's the case I 100% agree

[@joshuaturner4602]

@@RedBobcatGames It can be hard because planeswalker Uniqueness/Legend Rule was changed as many times as it was because it caused so many problems. Like people would include the 3 mana jace Belaren simply to prevent their opponent from having the opportunity to play jace the mind sculptor. As a result we have ended up with the rule we have now because versions that preserved the flavor better also caused undesirable patterns of play. When the changed the rule from "If one exists if any new one enters its controller must sacrifice it" to "When there is more than one sacrifice all instances" people still ran copies of popular legendaries/planewalkers in their decks because they were threats that doubled as removal spells. which is how we ended up here, were we only look at one side of the table and we only check if the things have the same name. Now you only run a card if it meaningfully contributes to your strategy. You dont run a 1 of sheoldred just in case you need a removal spell that bypasses all forms of protection.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Sure. But then from a flavour perspective you end up with 15 different version of Chandra like you say. And clearly neither of us think that's any fun either

[@zeoxyman]

I think the generic battles are going to be player-neutral, with any player being allowed to attack/defend them and whoever finishes the battle getting the reward. Probably something with no up-front effect, or a symmetrical one if the card cost a lot of mana. I think the siege formula is a simplified version they put together for 1v1 Limited (because making a Commander oriented mechanic the centerpiece of a draft set would be awkward). Idk how good this symmetrical version would be gameplay wise if I'm right. But I do think it would make more sense thematically. Whether my detail is right or not, I think you're correct about them removing the subtype later.

[@RedBobcatGames]

I hope they do make them player-neutral. I think that would actually be a lot more fun

[@MsNosis]

11 months late to comment, but here goes: this 'battle' setting COULD have been the perfect setting for when MtG releases their last set ever. Like the grand apocalyptic finale, every plane ever visited throughout the long history of magic (now even with all universes beyond included), each and every one invaded by this terrifying menace. A long story told over several sets showing the characters, places and planes we love (or hate, they are included too) and all those we have forgotten about, fighting against this invading threat, falling left and right. And then in the end, with a final epic confrontation, perhaps all planes merge their energies together in a massive explosion, or the multiverse is ripped apart and all is dark, or something else equally epic. Mechanically the very last set could have been a cooperative multiplayer format, where all players stand united against an automated bot with their own decks, like a version of Archenemy. And then that is it. The very last set released. No aftermath, no silly 'oh, it was just a dream', or 'all planeswalkers turned into oily robots are magically restored again' with no real lasting consequences. No, a final hurrah, a grand final. In such a setting, battles could have been awesome. As is, I mean its nice the worlds survived and the game goes on of course, but as a thematic setting they should have kept this battle setting up their sleeves for the very final set.

[@RedOphiuchus]

Not only do these cards all have the siege subtype but the rules about giving it to an opponent to protect (sort of, you actually still control the battle they just protect it) are siege specific. The reward aspect is also specific to sieges. The rules already define what to do when you have a battle that doesn't have the siege subtype: it enters under your protection and if it's defeated it goes to the graveyard. So the rules are already defined to include battles that you play for personal benefit and protect while your opponent tries to attack them. Of course mechanically... that's not very different from planeswalkers so I can see why they went with sieges first.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Wait wait wait wait. Where exactly have they said this? They haven't printed a Battle without the Siege mechanic yet. How are people supposed to know how Battles work if the cards don't exist? Why wouldn't this be in the announcment video introducing the card? Surely they don't expect everyone to sit down and read every section and subsection of their encyclopedia sized rule book?! This somehow makes them worse upon reflection! These cards are more than a mess! They are madness!

[@RedOphiuchus]

@@RedBobcatGames The following rules in the comprehensive rules describe this: 310.8a As a battle enters the battlefield, its controller chooses a player to be its protector. Which players may be chosen as its protector are determined by its battle type (see rule 310.11). If it has no battle types, its controller becomes its protector. 310.7. If a battle’s defense is 0 and it isn’t the source of an ability which has triggered but not yet left the stack, it’s put into its owner’s graveyard. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.) The first one indicates that you become the protector when there's no subtype and the second indicates that, if there's not a triggered ability from the battle on the stack when it's defeated, it just goes to the graveyard. It's yet to be seen if there will ever be a battle printed that has no subtype but you always want to have rules for what happens when you have no subtype when there's subtype-specific rules the way sieges work. Just in case a card exists now or later that causes a battle to lose its subtypes as it resolves.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Someone should tell the designers at WotC that reading the cards should explain the cards

[@RedOphiuchus]

@@RedBobcatGames honestly, it gets even more confusing than your video let on. Defeat isn't just the cute new keyword that refers to when a battle is destroyed, defeat only refers to when it runs out of defense counters. So your opponent is simultaneously in the situation where they want to prevent you from dealing it damage, but are more than happy if it gets caught in a Planar Cleansing. Because if the siege gets destroyed the controller doesn't get the flip side.

[@RedBobcatGames]

I laughed when I read your comment. It's like word soup haha, but you are totally right. I say again, madness

[@maxegbdf54]

I first thought battles were like planes and that anyone could interact with them probably by sending creatures attacking them or something.

[@RedBobcatGames]

I was hoping they were something like that too. But they seem so one sided as they are

[@reverbstarlight3405]

Really great breakdown! Nice clean visuals too! Hoping my comment gets you some extra algorithm mileage because this was really well put together

[@RedBobcatGames]

Really, really appriciated. Thank you very very much

[@HastorPrinceInYellow]

So, I know this doesn't help, and in fact aggregates the problem of discordance with the mechanics and thematics, but the idea of a battle card is: Phyrexians are attacking this plane or location, and you attacking is equivalent to devoting resources towards the *defense* of the plane. I wish there was some way they could reflect that mechanically, but frankly, I'm also at a loss.

[@HastorPrinceInYellow]

Literally, the card represents an event, not a physical thing

[@RedBobcatGames]

But sagas do that, and I feel the flavour of those works because the event is depicted on in universe items, like weapons and tapestries, that you as a player can imagine having summoned. I wonder what the Battle equivalent would be

[@schrottinator]

17:15 I know I'm way too late to the discussion but the reminder text explaining how the card works only refers its subtype Siege. So the theory holds up.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Oh yeah, for sure. But I'm of the mind that until they print a Battle without a Siege subtype I'm treating them as one and the same thing

[@electriccupcakedesign7093]

Imagine if battles were more like this mechanically and thematically: Invasion of New Phyrexia 🔆🔆 When Invasion of Mew Phyrexia enters the battlefield, the defender incubates 2 five times then convert those incubate tokens. (4) Flips into Elspeth The Destroyer Legendary Angel Flying, Vigilance, Shroud 6/6 ⤵️ Exile Target Creature. The battle only costs two white to play, Has a back side that your opponent certainly doesn’t want you to get and, The battle even gives them something to make defending not a needless drain on resources. These could be balanced by what it gives a defender vs what it gives you for defeating it and would make choosing a defender more of a difficult decision based on opponents deck types. Invasion of Kaladesh 🔥💧 When Invasion of Kaladesh enters the battlefield, the defender created a token named ‘Stolen Aether Vault’ which has: “When Stolen Aether Vault enters the battlefield, gain X energy counters where X is the number of cards on your hand. ⤵️, Pay up to 3 energy: add x mana of any one colour to your mana pool” where x is the amount of energy paid. (4) Flips into Mass Thopter Swarm Create three times as many 1/1 thopter, artifact creature tokens with flying, as cards in your hand. I hope they do revise this new card type and maybe go for more of the above direction, change the subtype to ‘Duel’ and make players actually hope they get to fight for one side of a battle or the other.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Oh I like that idea. Giving your opponent a bunch of creatures to represent the plane they're supposedly invading from? That's very cool

[@vats386]

I feel like labeling them as something like "creature - Boss" and giving them wall like effect where they cant attack with the added effect that they can be targeted directly would have had the same effect while being more clear and not having to make a whole new type. If I think of the battle as an event that by adding to it with your own attacks you are ending sooner, causing the people who fought in the battle to join you, it makes sense but it still feels very flavor weird in general

[@RedBobcatGames]

Yeah, plus I can't get over why if you're the one to cast the spell, why do you then want to attack what you've cast? I dunno, still needs something

[@vats386]

@@RedBobcatGames It feels extremely bottom up design where they had this idea of how they wanted a card to work and everything else was made around it, and when they couldnt get it to work quiet right they just gave up and sent it out anyways.

[@RedBobcatGames]

Pretty much my thoughts too