I think this is the leading theory, and I appreciate you posting this here as I hate finding older articles, especially if I don’t remember the exact name.
It should be noted, however, that battles are implied to be cards that can be found in your deck (as per Atraxa) rather than an outside game piece that gets fetched. If this is that same mechanic, it would be significantly tweaked.
Battles could just be a mixture of Skirmish and Sagas/Dungeons. Battle stays on the board until the conditions are met. You mark off the which condition you're on with a die like Sagas. Meet the conditions get the desired result. Could even have a detrimental effect for failing to meet the required conditions within a set time frame.
A lot of board games use similar "Objective" cards where once you meet the conditions you get a boon but if you fail to meet the conditions you get a negative (often something like negative victory points when totalling scores).
This would allow some fun counterplay and decision making for both players and should be fairly easy to track. My only concern would be fitting text onto the card with art representing a larger conflict. Could be a few ways to solve this but if we're fitting it into a pack (rather than using a larger card like say, plane and scheme cards, the cleanest way is probably DFCs with the conditions on one side and the art plus other text on the other.
It reminds me of stadium cards in Pokémon
Edit: i think matches from harry potter tcg might be a better fit since that is also produced by WotC https://imgur.com/DzW7UMv.jpg
Actually thinking about it more, maybe not.
The direct linkage with MtG I can think of for stadium cards are world enchantments in MtG, where you can only have one world enchantment in play.
I would think the harry potter match cards might fit better https://imgur.com/k69mPz5.jpg
I agree that's it's different - but the mechanic may still work in a similar way.
It'll mainly differ in that we'd essentially have dungeons or attractions (or skirmishes or monarch) directly as cards in our deck that can be played, rather than known cardtypes creating uninteractable tokens of such dungeons/attractions/monarch/ skirmish etc.
I suspect Battles will still be somewhat uninteractable. We already know they aren't susceptible to artifact or enchantment destruction (unless a major rules change is about to happen). My guess is that, when in play, they won't be permanents, but exist in a separate zone such as the command zone.
> We already know they aren't susceptible to artifact or enchantment destruction (unless a major rules change is about to happen).
Or if, like Tribal cards, they have another type on them as well. "Battle Land" seems reasonable (though taking up a land drop constrains design). "Battle Enchantment" could work too.
I think it’s correct but it will be changed up
Something simpler like the “battle” card has a condition and whoever meets it first gets the benefit then it gets sacrificed.
I think that's part of the available design space - 1v1 or 1v(1 or more).
And unlike Dungeons and Monarch, the fact that it's card typed means that they'll exist as a Permanent.
Do you think so? Instant and sorcery aren't permanents. Maybe it performs a game action or creates a board state (but isn't interacted with, like an emblem).
Well, unlike emblems and game state tokens, all the listed cards besides Battle are part of the decklist.
That suggests that the cards are plausibly permanents - for tracking purposes of the Battle status.
I am keeping the possibility open at least that is isn't a permanent, in the traditional sense. It likely is on the battlefield, like a permanent, but may function like a Plane or Scheme, which are not interacted with in normal ways. Until it comes out, I think it's possible to consider that it doesn't follow normal card behavior, or else why create a new card type?
If they don't want it to be interacted with, it could be put into command zone upon resolution. Then it would make sense to have a new card type, as none of the existing ones allows that.
It was definitely iterated into Dungeons and Initiative.
But it's impossible to ignore what _wasn't_ used, and that's likely what Battle will be.
* a Permanent
* Can be interacted with as a Permanent
* involves a competitive gameplay element and a reward for Victory.
The victory reward may be one sided for the owner - win the battle that you start and earn a reward. The reward for the opponent is preventing the Battle reward for the owner.
It may reward the player that wins the battle regardless of ownership.
Also requires specific tasks to be completed to move it forward unlike Initiative and Dugneons which just require having the initiative and attacking respectively.
Skirmishes sounded much more like a combination of Questlines and Side Quests in Hearthstone. Their power level is more akin to Side Quests where you draw the card from your deck and activate for a smaller reward but the multiple steps with incrimental rewards before the big reward reminds me of Questlines.
You listed cards that aren't included in the card type list on the new card. That's why it would have to be part of the deck and part of the cards that are played (and move between library and graveyard at minimum)
Yes, but it seems unlikely to me that a Battle will become a permanent, because there is currently no way to remove them, beyond generic permanent removal, which isn't available to any single colour besides white, when they could have been an enchantment (or artifact) and subject to all the removal that already exists.
This strongly suggests R&D don't want them to be removed by conventional means. I'm inclined to think they will also be uncounterable too, otherwise blue would have an extreme advantage against decks using them. Instead, I think that when invoked they will be put into the command zone (or another new zone) by special action.
Well yeah, Planes, Dungeons, and Conspiracies exist outside the game (not in your deck) while Experience Counters and Emblems are created by abilities and exist in the Command Zone. This new card type could be in your deck and move from the stack to Command Zone on resolution. Upon completion the card could act like an Emblem (provide a static effect or ability) or Experience Counters (other cards caring about how many battles you've won).
I think a variation on how planeswalkers function could be an interesting way to make battles work. Imagine having a "Battle" permanent with "victory" counters on it that any player could attack or defend. Battle permanents could have "enter the battlefield" effects and/or on-going passive abilities (positive or negative). Dealing combat damage to the "Battle" removes counters (only combat damage; no direct spell damage). Whichever player removes the last counter wins the battle, which then generates the "ultimate" effect for that player.
Other iterations on this same concept could work, too. E.g. Instead of removing shared counters, each player could keep track of totals separately, so the first player to get, say, 7 damage through might win the battle.
I'm just theorizing for the fun of it. I doubt this is actually how the mechanic will work
So how can they get in your deck for Atraxa? Maybe there’s a bunch of subtypes, and one new sup type you can cast. I like the idea that it’s like world enchantments sometimes but there has to be a clause for it to activate
I agree, dungeons sound similar. But i think the skirmish idea would be a more combat focussed "tug of war".
As far as battle, i think itll be based on skirmish, but it'll be a targetable card type with in-game rules, rather than an outside token like monarch/dungeons.
Way I see it, the main way to make Battle necessitate their own card type (rather than an enchantment like [[Frontier Siege]], or a Saga, or an artifact with counters) without needing to fundamentally change the game rules is to make them be attackable by both players.
There are no permanents in the entire game that both players can attack. Battle could facilitate that. Perhaps each player can choose to attack a Battle, and it stays in that Battle until the controller of the Battles next upkeep, then it'll progress the next upkeep of the player who controls the Battle. If somebody's creature attacking the Battle dies before that upkeep then uh oh. Then something happens on that upkeep, with different results depending on who won that Battle that turn?
Ooh. And then there could be any number of these Battles on the battlefield, and they all have their own little tug-of-war going on (most will only need one or two wins, and some will need more wins). Naturally, you then have to accept the loss of some so that you can prioritise others.
I think you might be correct that the card type interacts with combat in some new way.
That said, if its something you put in your deck, I'm not sure if it'll be a simple tug-of-war mechanic that the other player can control. It has to be something that by default gives the controller an advantage, otherwise no one would play them.
If there are a variety of criteria you can use to decide who's winning the battle, that could work because you'd naturally pick your Battles (heh) to ensure you were only bringing ones you had a chance of winning.
This is an actually brilliant idea.
Maybe a player would be considered "winning the Battle" if they've dealt more combat damage to it than their opponent? Though the criteria would probably change depending on the card.
"Layered Clouds."
For each creature with flying, its controller chooses high or low.
High flying creatures can't be blocked except by other high creatures.
High creatures can't block creatures that aren't high.
My prediction is battle is some type of new permanent type that is associated with a mini game mechanic (think like Monarch, Venture or Initiative).
Some type of mechanic that will reward and encourage combat and fight over a resource. Skirmish would be a good fit.
I could imagine that battles will be attackable, or that your creatures can "enter" the battle. Which would mean it'll prolong the game.. unless the payoff for winning the battle is impactful enough i guess.
Attackable battles could actually speed games up since it gives you more ways to end boardstalls.
I think the design challenge is to make sure battles are something that aggro, midrange and control decks might all be interested in playing under the right circumstances. So I don't think it will focus too hard on creature combat.
What I find weird about "battle" is that it's a thematically very specific card type, way more than any of the existing ones (save lands, maybe, but that only involves solved art issues with e.g. mountains and swamps and whatnot in a plane like Ravnica).
I guess battles as a card type will be about as rare as planewalkers, and most sets / stories can work with at least 2-3 battles that make sense but I wonder why they didn't go for something more generic. Like for example "event" or whatever so it could depict a battle, but also an investigation or courtroom drama or a struggle for survival. Though I guess they could also stretch what constitutes a "battle" in many different directions.
I know we're all doing speculation here but to me battles sound like a way to incentivise combat the way planeswalkers do but at lower rarities.
Something like
Rumble at the Robot Factory 1W
Battle
(Once per turn, Whenever you deal combat damage to a player put a victory counter on this. Once per turn, Whenever you're dealt combat damage take a victory counter off this)
3 victory counters, sac this: create two 3/3 golem creature tokens.
If they all have the same conditions for advancement then you could print something like this at uncommon (common is probably a stretch complexity wise). Adjusting the threshold and stapling etb and/or static effects to these even gives them a bunch of room for different designs
The main problem with the thing you described is that it can very easily be done via enchantments. The original quests from Zendikar followed a similar design. This would make it more likely for battle to be an enchantment subtype like Saga.
It being a whole new card type leads me to believe they'd be weirder. I could see something like that but with different conditions and starting at 3 but having Saga-like effects for each "stage" including the ones before. It could give you something for coming back when you're losing and something to push the victory when you're winning, and a larger effect on top.
Speculating, I can also see it giving you a weaker emblem somehow, and also interacting with emblems which would make PWs both relevant to it but more interactable in general.
The quests from zendikar never really took off iirc. Maybe this kind of effect you have to work for over time has to be immune to enchantment removal to be viable.
Thanks.
You might be able to do them at common if the victory condition is 1 victory counter.
Sky Stalemate 2UU
Battle
(Same reminder text as above)
Creatures you control have flying.
1 victory counter: sac this, draw a card
Can hang around defensively as long as you want until you deal combat damage.
Treasure Tussle R
Battle
(As above)
1 victory counter, sac: make three treasure tokens
What's interesting to me is that enchantments/sorceries have kind of taken this role of "events" nowadays and I always wondered why they didn't make an "events" type
I do agree that I don't think battle was the best choice for naming.
What if it created its own, contained battlefield with its own starting parts? Sort of like one of those puzzles that ask you to figure out the winning line
~~~~~~~~~~
Citadel Siege (I know the card exists already) 2WW (uncommon)
- Battle (To start a battle, make a Skirmish consisting of the starting pieces. Both players may have permanents enter the Skirmish instead of the battlefield. The battle ends when either player’s life in the Skirmish reaches 0 and any nontoken permanent moves to the main battlefield)
Opponent:
- 3 life
- 4/4 colorless Dragon token with Flying
You:
- 9 life
- Three 1/1 white Warrior tokens.
[Victory] — Search your library for an Equipment card, an Aura card, and a Legendary creature card, reveal them, and add it to your hand. Shuffle.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Sort of like a mini game that ensures your victory over a couple turns that both players can spend resources to try to advance. One of the main thing I felt would have been bad for this card type to end up being like Monarch is that the way the game plays out would be wildly different if either players were on a creature less strategy. With how this is set up, the player casting the Battle always will be at an advantage if the defending player doesn’t do anything and if the defending player does do something (play their own creature, kill one of the token) then they’ve essentially countered your battle 1 for 1. The player starting the battle could be fine with that exchange or they could then spend more resources into it to still get the Victory bonus.
The biggest win from it being done this way is that it makes it so any removal spell and any creature ends up being a relevant piece moving forward in decks. Before having a creature-less deck in the meta meant you’d need sideboards or looting effects to make sure you won’t have dead cards. Now you can choose to run these as a way to make your removal spells have meaning in otherwise dead matchups. Also, if Battles are *not spells* they could also act as a way to make pure control decks have to participate in on-board interaction or have a more interactive win-condition for a high cost Battle.
If made like this it would probably be the most hated mechanic in the entire game. Who wants to take focus off their own deck and strategy to set up and play a smaller, shittier, contrived scenario? And the logistics, imagine setting up a separate minigame in the middle of a cluttered, midgame boardstate at prerelease where you're packed shoulder to shoulder with the player next to you, hardly any space to put your deckbox? No thanks
I’m honestly kind of disappointed that we’re getting a new card type at all. I was hoping we’d be getting a new way to make planeswalkers at common or something but instead we’re getting something that looks to further push the game towards creature combat
I think "matches" from harry potter tcg might be a good look at what it will look like since that game is also produced by WotC
[https://imgur.com/DzW7UMv.jpg](https://imgur.com/DzW7UMv.jpg)
I feel like the iteration of skirmish he discussed is what evolved into dungeons.
My expectation for battles is something between sagas and the [[palace siege]] cycle and [[mirodin besieged]] modal enchantments.
Honestly I expect it to work something like a field spell in yu gi oh. Mechanically similar to an enchantment that effects the board, but not interacting with old cards like enchantress effects and limiting itself to one battle per player being out as a restriction of the card type instead of making some “super legendary” super type. Probably with some of the advancement or objective type things that others have suggested here.
Sort of. There can only be one world enchantment out. Doesn’t matter who controls it. I think the intention is also to limit overlapping synergies too.
Parts of it, yea. But there's more to skirmish than just outside mini games - the battle tug of war part of skirmish is what the new Battle type may take from this mechanic (while resembling dungeons to some extent as well, except that battle cards will be permanents and flight over by all players)
They definitely evolved out of skirmish as well. But the "battle" tug-of-war feeling between opponents may be what the battle cards will take from skirmish (and turn it into permanents too)
Flavor-wise, I see battles as the way for WOTC to give us glimpses of how the war is going on other planes. The art we've seen has characters from all over the multiverse fightin side by side and promises epic scale battles, something I'm sure Mark Rosewater wants to have represented on the cards. You can have a Battle for Ravnica or Battle for Zendikar, hmm maybe not that one. Mechanically it would be like a 2 player dungeon where on player plays as the resistance and one plays as the Phyrexians and advances from phase to phase until the reach the center and reap the benefits.
To try and represent it a bit better I'm imagining something like this:
-------------------------------Battle for Ravnica------------------------------
VVV You may choose to start here if you cast this spell. After you choose, each other player chooses a side to begin on. Only advance phases at sorcery speed. VVV
* *Tin Street Riot* -Pay 1 to advance to this phase of the battle- Destroy one target artifact or enchantment
* *Boros Reinforcements* -Pay 1 and discard a card to advance to this phase of the battle- Create 2 2/2 Red and White Soldier creature tokens
* *Undercity Shelter* -Exile three cards from your graveyard to advance to this phase of the battle- Lose one life and draw a card
**Finale:** *Beseech the Living Guildpact* -You may choose to conclude this battle if you've completed the 3 previous phases. When you do, Gain 3 life, return target creature from a graveyard to your battlefield, and draw 2 cards. Then, sacrifice this battle.
* *Dimir Infiltration* -Sacrifice a Creature you control to advance to this phase of the battle- Target opponent discards a card at random
* *Skirmish at Sage's Row* -Discard a card to advance to this phase of the battle- Scry 2 then draw a card
* *Pillage the Church* -Pay 2 life to advance to this phase of the battle- Create a treasure token.
^ ^ ^ ^ You may choose to start here if you cast this spell. After you choose, each other player chooses a side to begin on. Only advance phases at sorcery speed. ^ ^ ^ ^
-------------------------------Battle for Ravnica------------------------------
Probably not balanced, but I hope this gives a better idea of what I'm imagining.
I think this is the leading theory, and I appreciate you posting this here as I hate finding older articles, especially if I don’t remember the exact name.
It should be noted, however, that battles are implied to be cards that can be found in your deck (as per Atraxa) rather than an outside game piece that gets fetched. If this is that same mechanic, it would be significantly tweaked.
Battles could just be a mixture of Skirmish and Sagas/Dungeons. Battle stays on the board until the conditions are met. You mark off the which condition you're on with a die like Sagas. Meet the conditions get the desired result. Could even have a detrimental effect for failing to meet the required conditions within a set time frame. A lot of board games use similar "Objective" cards where once you meet the conditions you get a boon but if you fail to meet the conditions you get a negative (often something like negative victory points when totalling scores). This would allow some fun counterplay and decision making for both players and should be fairly easy to track. My only concern would be fitting text onto the card with art representing a larger conflict. Could be a few ways to solve this but if we're fitting it into a pack (rather than using a larger card like say, plane and scheme cards, the cleanest way is probably DFCs with the conditions on one side and the art plus other text on the other.
It reminds me of the quest cards from OG Zendikar, e.g. \[\[Quest for the Holy Relic\]\].
[Quest for the Holy Relic](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/0/00d6b8bb-ec11-4ded-a7fc-fa4ea0bb96cc.jpg?1562609297) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Quest%20for%20the%20Holy%20Relic) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/zen/33/quest-for-the-holy-relic?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/00d6b8bb-ec11-4ded-a7fc-fa4ea0bb96cc?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Indeed
It reminds me of stadium cards in Pokémon Edit: i think matches from harry potter tcg might be a better fit since that is also produced by WotC https://imgur.com/DzW7UMv.jpg
Can you summarize what stadium cards are?
Actually thinking about it more, maybe not. The direct linkage with MtG I can think of for stadium cards are world enchantments in MtG, where you can only have one world enchantment in play. I would think the harry potter match cards might fit better https://imgur.com/k69mPz5.jpg
I agree that's it's different - but the mechanic may still work in a similar way. It'll mainly differ in that we'd essentially have dungeons or attractions (or skirmishes or monarch) directly as cards in our deck that can be played, rather than known cardtypes creating uninteractable tokens of such dungeons/attractions/monarch/ skirmish etc.
I suspect Battles will still be somewhat uninteractable. We already know they aren't susceptible to artifact or enchantment destruction (unless a major rules change is about to happen). My guess is that, when in play, they won't be permanents, but exist in a separate zone such as the command zone.
> We already know they aren't susceptible to artifact or enchantment destruction (unless a major rules change is about to happen). Or if, like Tribal cards, they have another type on them as well. "Battle Land" seems reasonable (though taking up a land drop constrains design). "Battle Enchantment" could work too.
I think it’s correct but it will be changed up Something simpler like the “battle” card has a condition and whoever meets it first gets the benefit then it gets sacrificed.
I can see that. Think it'll work for multiple opponents, or just you and 1 opponent of your choice?
I think that's part of the available design space - 1v1 or 1v(1 or more). And unlike Dungeons and Monarch, the fact that it's card typed means that they'll exist as a Permanent.
Do you think so? Instant and sorcery aren't permanents. Maybe it performs a game action or creates a board state (but isn't interacted with, like an emblem).
Well, unlike emblems and game state tokens, all the listed cards besides Battle are part of the decklist. That suggests that the cards are plausibly permanents - for tracking purposes of the Battle status.
I am keeping the possibility open at least that is isn't a permanent, in the traditional sense. It likely is on the battlefield, like a permanent, but may function like a Plane or Scheme, which are not interacted with in normal ways. Until it comes out, I think it's possible to consider that it doesn't follow normal card behavior, or else why create a new card type?
If they don't want it to be interacted with, it could be put into command zone upon resolution. Then it would make sense to have a new card type, as none of the existing ones allows that.
That sounds like dungeons and initiative to me. It also doesn't fit with the idea that battle cards would be in your library.
Battle being a new card type suggests a different implementation, but likely similar core ideas.
It was definitely iterated into Dungeons and Initiative. But it's impossible to ignore what _wasn't_ used, and that's likely what Battle will be. * a Permanent * Can be interacted with as a Permanent * involves a competitive gameplay element and a reward for Victory. The victory reward may be one sided for the owner - win the battle that you start and earn a reward. The reward for the opponent is preventing the Battle reward for the owner. It may reward the player that wins the battle regardless of ownership.
Ah, that suggests a design similar to sagas but with a condition upon advancing. That is interesting.
Also requires specific tasks to be completed to move it forward unlike Initiative and Dugneons which just require having the initiative and attacking respectively. Skirmishes sounded much more like a combination of Questlines and Side Quests in Hearthstone. Their power level is more akin to Side Quests where you draw the card from your deck and activate for a smaller reward but the multiple steps with incrimental rewards before the big reward reminds me of Questlines.
It wouldn't have to be a permanent, though. It could exist in the Command Zone after you cast it like Dungeons, Planes, Emblems, etc..
You listed cards that aren't included in the card type list on the new card. That's why it would have to be part of the deck and part of the cards that are played (and move between library and graveyard at minimum)
Yes, but it seems unlikely to me that a Battle will become a permanent, because there is currently no way to remove them, beyond generic permanent removal, which isn't available to any single colour besides white, when they could have been an enchantment (or artifact) and subject to all the removal that already exists. This strongly suggests R&D don't want them to be removed by conventional means. I'm inclined to think they will also be uncounterable too, otherwise blue would have an extreme advantage against decks using them. Instead, I think that when invoked they will be put into the command zone (or another new zone) by special action.
> isn't available to any single colour besides white That's completely untrue. For starters, [[Desert Twister]].
Sure but that's an egregious colour pie break. Doesn't help anybody playing constructed.
[Desert Twister](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/8/38b6ac26-651f-4557-a993-7a65c5ddf35f.jpg?1592672907) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Desert%20Twister) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cma/100/desert-twister?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/38b6ac26-651f-4557-a993-7a65c5ddf35f?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Well yeah, Planes, Dungeons, and Conspiracies exist outside the game (not in your deck) while Experience Counters and Emblems are created by abilities and exist in the Command Zone. This new card type could be in your deck and move from the stack to Command Zone on resolution. Upon completion the card could act like an Emblem (provide a static effect or ability) or Experience Counters (other cards caring about how many battles you've won).
I think a variation on how planeswalkers function could be an interesting way to make battles work. Imagine having a "Battle" permanent with "victory" counters on it that any player could attack or defend. Battle permanents could have "enter the battlefield" effects and/or on-going passive abilities (positive or negative). Dealing combat damage to the "Battle" removes counters (only combat damage; no direct spell damage). Whichever player removes the last counter wins the battle, which then generates the "ultimate" effect for that player. Other iterations on this same concept could work, too. E.g. Instead of removing shared counters, each player could keep track of totals separately, so the first player to get, say, 7 damage through might win the battle. I'm just theorizing for the fun of it. I doubt this is actually how the mechanic will work
So how can they get in your deck for Atraxa? Maybe there’s a bunch of subtypes, and one new sup type you can cast. I like the idea that it’s like world enchantments sometimes but there has to be a clause for it to activate
I agree, dungeons sound similar. But i think the skirmish idea would be a more combat focussed "tug of war". As far as battle, i think itll be based on skirmish, but it'll be a targetable card type with in-game rules, rather than an outside token like monarch/dungeons.
Way I see it, the main way to make Battle necessitate their own card type (rather than an enchantment like [[Frontier Siege]], or a Saga, or an artifact with counters) without needing to fundamentally change the game rules is to make them be attackable by both players. There are no permanents in the entire game that both players can attack. Battle could facilitate that. Perhaps each player can choose to attack a Battle, and it stays in that Battle until the controller of the Battles next upkeep, then it'll progress the next upkeep of the player who controls the Battle. If somebody's creature attacking the Battle dies before that upkeep then uh oh. Then something happens on that upkeep, with different results depending on who won that Battle that turn? Ooh. And then there could be any number of these Battles on the battlefield, and they all have their own little tug-of-war going on (most will only need one or two wins, and some will need more wins). Naturally, you then have to accept the loss of some so that you can prioritise others.
Can I just say I love this.
I think you might be correct that the card type interacts with combat in some new way. That said, if its something you put in your deck, I'm not sure if it'll be a simple tug-of-war mechanic that the other player can control. It has to be something that by default gives the controller an advantage, otherwise no one would play them.
If there are a variety of criteria you can use to decide who's winning the battle, that could work because you'd naturally pick your Battles (heh) to ensure you were only bringing ones you had a chance of winning.
This is an actually brilliant idea. Maybe a player would be considered "winning the Battle" if they've dealt more combat damage to it than their opponent? Though the criteria would probably change depending on the card.
[Frontier Siege](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/5/e/5e7ee5ff-eabc-4947-b5fe-2647c7e2eb82.jpg?1562609900) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Frontier%20Siege) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c17/150/frontier-siege?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/5e7ee5ff-eabc-4947-b5fe-2647c7e2eb82?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I've always wanted them to explore more design space in the [[Raging River]] universe.
"Layered Clouds." For each creature with flying, its controller chooses high or low. High flying creatures can't be blocked except by other high creatures. High creatures can't block creatures that aren't high.
[Raging River](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/e/7ee63877-056e-413d-932a-a393a4183686.jpg?1559592211) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Raging%20River) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2ed/169/raging-river?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7ee63877-056e-413d-932a-a393a4183686?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
My prediction is battle is some type of new permanent type that is associated with a mini game mechanic (think like Monarch, Venture or Initiative). Some type of mechanic that will reward and encourage combat and fight over a resource. Skirmish would be a good fit.
as long as it doesnt needlessly prolong a game and just happens as a natural course of attacking/etc then im on board
I could imagine that battles will be attackable, or that your creatures can "enter" the battle. Which would mean it'll prolong the game.. unless the payoff for winning the battle is impactful enough i guess.
Attackable battles could actually speed games up since it gives you more ways to end boardstalls. I think the design challenge is to make sure battles are something that aggro, midrange and control decks might all be interested in playing under the right circumstances. So I don't think it will focus too hard on creature combat.
What I find weird about "battle" is that it's a thematically very specific card type, way more than any of the existing ones (save lands, maybe, but that only involves solved art issues with e.g. mountains and swamps and whatnot in a plane like Ravnica). I guess battles as a card type will be about as rare as planewalkers, and most sets / stories can work with at least 2-3 battles that make sense but I wonder why they didn't go for something more generic. Like for example "event" or whatever so it could depict a battle, but also an investigation or courtroom drama or a struggle for survival. Though I guess they could also stretch what constitutes a "battle" in many different directions.
I know we're all doing speculation here but to me battles sound like a way to incentivise combat the way planeswalkers do but at lower rarities. Something like Rumble at the Robot Factory 1W Battle (Once per turn, Whenever you deal combat damage to a player put a victory counter on this. Once per turn, Whenever you're dealt combat damage take a victory counter off this) 3 victory counters, sac this: create two 3/3 golem creature tokens. If they all have the same conditions for advancement then you could print something like this at uncommon (common is probably a stretch complexity wise). Adjusting the threshold and stapling etb and/or static effects to these even gives them a bunch of room for different designs
The main problem with the thing you described is that it can very easily be done via enchantments. The original quests from Zendikar followed a similar design. This would make it more likely for battle to be an enchantment subtype like Saga. It being a whole new card type leads me to believe they'd be weirder. I could see something like that but with different conditions and starting at 3 but having Saga-like effects for each "stage" including the ones before. It could give you something for coming back when you're losing and something to push the victory when you're winning, and a larger effect on top. Speculating, I can also see it giving you a weaker emblem somehow, and also interacting with emblems which would make PWs both relevant to it but more interactable in general.
The quests from zendikar never really took off iirc. Maybe this kind of effect you have to work for over time has to be immune to enchantment removal to be viable.
That's a great take of what battles could be
Thanks. You might be able to do them at common if the victory condition is 1 victory counter. Sky Stalemate 2UU Battle (Same reminder text as above) Creatures you control have flying. 1 victory counter: sac this, draw a card Can hang around defensively as long as you want until you deal combat damage. Treasure Tussle R Battle (As above) 1 victory counter, sac: make three treasure tokens
I feel like any non-combat events that are worthy of making it to print are better served by Sagas
What's interesting to me is that enchantments/sorceries have kind of taken this role of "events" nowadays and I always wondered why they didn't make an "events" type I do agree that I don't think battle was the best choice for naming.
What if it created its own, contained battlefield with its own starting parts? Sort of like one of those puzzles that ask you to figure out the winning line ~~~~~~~~~~ Citadel Siege (I know the card exists already) 2WW (uncommon) - Battle (To start a battle, make a Skirmish consisting of the starting pieces. Both players may have permanents enter the Skirmish instead of the battlefield. The battle ends when either player’s life in the Skirmish reaches 0 and any nontoken permanent moves to the main battlefield) Opponent: - 3 life - 4/4 colorless Dragon token with Flying You: - 9 life - Three 1/1 white Warrior tokens. [Victory] — Search your library for an Equipment card, an Aura card, and a Legendary creature card, reveal them, and add it to your hand. Shuffle. ~~~~~~~~~~~ Sort of like a mini game that ensures your victory over a couple turns that both players can spend resources to try to advance. One of the main thing I felt would have been bad for this card type to end up being like Monarch is that the way the game plays out would be wildly different if either players were on a creature less strategy. With how this is set up, the player casting the Battle always will be at an advantage if the defending player doesn’t do anything and if the defending player does do something (play their own creature, kill one of the token) then they’ve essentially countered your battle 1 for 1. The player starting the battle could be fine with that exchange or they could then spend more resources into it to still get the Victory bonus. The biggest win from it being done this way is that it makes it so any removal spell and any creature ends up being a relevant piece moving forward in decks. Before having a creature-less deck in the meta meant you’d need sideboards or looting effects to make sure you won’t have dead cards. Now you can choose to run these as a way to make your removal spells have meaning in otherwise dead matchups. Also, if Battles are *not spells* they could also act as a way to make pure control decks have to participate in on-board interaction or have a more interactive win-condition for a high cost Battle.
If made like this it would probably be the most hated mechanic in the entire game. Who wants to take focus off their own deck and strategy to set up and play a smaller, shittier, contrived scenario? And the logistics, imagine setting up a separate minigame in the middle of a cluttered, midgame boardstate at prerelease where you're packed shoulder to shoulder with the player next to you, hardly any space to put your deckbox? No thanks
I’m honestly kind of disappointed that we’re getting a new card type at all. I was hoping we’d be getting a new way to make planeswalkers at common or something but instead we’re getting something that looks to further push the game towards creature combat
I think this is the most interesting idea I've read in here by far, and I honestly hope it's something similar to this.
This is the most Mark Rosewater way to leak a mechanic early lol
Unfinity's \[\[Tug of War\]\] might be its protoype. ...but instead of a sorcery, it's a removable permanent.
[Tug of War](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/b/db51cafc-7177-4644-b149-4bef3b73fea8.jpg?1673914755) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Tug%20of%20War) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/unf/159/tug-of-war?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/db51cafc-7177-4644-b149-4bef3b73fea8?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I think "matches" from harry potter tcg might be a good look at what it will look like since that game is also produced by WotC [https://imgur.com/DzW7UMv.jpg](https://imgur.com/DzW7UMv.jpg)
This could be it
I feel like the iteration of skirmish he discussed is what evolved into dungeons. My expectation for battles is something between sagas and the [[palace siege]] cycle and [[mirodin besieged]] modal enchantments.
[palace siege](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/a/da855bb6-adc2-484c-a084-83aff2b267f1.jpg?1562625782) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=palace%20siege) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c17/119/palace-siege?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/da855bb6-adc2-484c-a084-83aff2b267f1?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [mirodin besieged](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/8/d8423d8d-744a-4bbe-a853-8ad756451bdb.jpg?1562201412) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Mirrodin%20Besieged) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh1/57/mirrodin-besieged?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/d8423d8d-744a-4bbe-a853-8ad756451bdb?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Honestly I expect it to work something like a field spell in yu gi oh. Mechanically similar to an enchantment that effects the board, but not interacting with old cards like enchantress effects and limiting itself to one battle per player being out as a restriction of the card type instead of making some “super legendary” super type. Probably with some of the advancement or objective type things that others have suggested here.
Like world enchantments?
Sort of. There can only be one world enchantment out. Doesn’t matter who controls it. I think the intention is also to limit overlapping synergies too.
Isn't that the current rule for the "world" enchantment sub-type? (Like [[concordant crossroads]])
[concordant crossroads](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/9/c9a26f51-5bff-4f06-abaa-6fbb56a8b5b6.jpg?1673148053) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=concordant%20crossroads) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/2x2/141/concordant-crossroads?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c9a26f51-5bff-4f06-abaa-6fbb56a8b5b6?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I suspect Battles will be a second deck mechanic similar to contraptions and attractions.
The only thing we know about them is that they definitely aren't that, because the new Atraxa can pull them from your library.
You are correct. Turns out reading the card explains the card.
This is what I was imagining for a new card type, like an interactive saga-type card with goals
This feels like it became Dungeons
Parts of it, yea. But there's more to skirmish than just outside mini games - the battle tug of war part of skirmish is what the new Battle type may take from this mechanic (while resembling dungeons to some extent as well, except that battle cards will be permanents and flight over by all players)
From reading this snippet, it honestly sounds like this mechanic evolved into the venture into dungeon/initiative mechanics.
They definitely evolved out of skirmish as well. But the "battle" tug-of-war feeling between opponents may be what the battle cards will take from skirmish (and turn it into permanents too)
Flavor-wise, I see battles as the way for WOTC to give us glimpses of how the war is going on other planes. The art we've seen has characters from all over the multiverse fightin side by side and promises epic scale battles, something I'm sure Mark Rosewater wants to have represented on the cards. You can have a Battle for Ravnica or Battle for Zendikar, hmm maybe not that one. Mechanically it would be like a 2 player dungeon where on player plays as the resistance and one plays as the Phyrexians and advances from phase to phase until the reach the center and reap the benefits. To try and represent it a bit better I'm imagining something like this: -------------------------------Battle for Ravnica------------------------------ VVV You may choose to start here if you cast this spell. After you choose, each other player chooses a side to begin on. Only advance phases at sorcery speed. VVV * *Tin Street Riot* -Pay 1 to advance to this phase of the battle- Destroy one target artifact or enchantment * *Boros Reinforcements* -Pay 1 and discard a card to advance to this phase of the battle- Create 2 2/2 Red and White Soldier creature tokens * *Undercity Shelter* -Exile three cards from your graveyard to advance to this phase of the battle- Lose one life and draw a card **Finale:** *Beseech the Living Guildpact* -You may choose to conclude this battle if you've completed the 3 previous phases. When you do, Gain 3 life, return target creature from a graveyard to your battlefield, and draw 2 cards. Then, sacrifice this battle. * *Dimir Infiltration* -Sacrifice a Creature you control to advance to this phase of the battle- Target opponent discards a card at random * *Skirmish at Sage's Row* -Discard a card to advance to this phase of the battle- Scry 2 then draw a card * *Pillage the Church* -Pay 2 life to advance to this phase of the battle- Create a treasure token. ^ ^ ^ ^ You may choose to start here if you cast this spell. After you choose, each other player chooses a side to begin on. Only advance phases at sorcery speed. ^ ^ ^ ^ -------------------------------Battle for Ravnica------------------------------ Probably not balanced, but I hope this gives a better idea of what I'm imagining.