Battlefield.

[Zir]

So, as if the "Here I rule" campaign wasn't bad enough, they decided we had to look kiddy playing the game.
That's right, now we get to put things into the battlefield.
Source:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=164339

[jjjoness']

Yeah... this sucks balls. Also there will be no more RFG. "Ach Hans Runs it's the Exiled Zone".

[KillemallCFH]

I've stopped caring.

[TheRock]

Am I still allowed to use RFG? Exiled is fine but I don't think I'll ever get used to the change.

As for the other change and possible change to mana burn, I see the Yu-Gi-Oh kids now... It's not like Sen Triplets was any good anyway.

[from Cairo]

Clearly cards coming into play and being removed from the game is to disruptive to my Planeswalker role play. More summoning my legions into battle and exiling my foes ~

[Nihil Credo]

I'm surprised a civil war didn't break out between Templating and Creative. One of the most common words in the Oracle goes from four to ten letters? This can't possibly go wrong.

Incidentally, Golden Lotus looks like it has a fair bit of potential.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

So, as if the "Here I rule" campaign wasn't bad enough, they decided we had to look kiddy playing the game.
That's right, now we get to put things into the battlefield.
Source:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=164339

I don't mind the battlefield so much. I don't like it, since it blurs the line between playing a strategy game and engaging in fantasy, but I can live with it, I guess. I wouldn't be happy with "exile," however--hell, it doesn't even really properly describe what happens when something is removed from the game. People typically return from exile; cards, on the other hand, do not (save rarely, thanks to the Wish cycle).


As far as childishness goes, we lost that battle a long time ago, what with an onslaught of new keywords and silly-looking art. No worries.

[Dan Turner]

Honestly I can care less, I am going to use any terms I feel comfortable using.

I always say I am putting this card in my discard pile and no one complains when i dont use graveyard even though i been playing since '93.


So if your deck is your Library, is your hand your Tome LMAO

I mean C'mon remove 2 spells from your Tome has pretty good flavor applications.

And instead of cards we will call them Pages.

That way: Target player removes 2 pages of his tome at random. All pages removed this way are placed in the Graveyard.

And then I can pull out a d20 and roll for initiative to see if i go first next round or not.

[Forbiddian]

I'm surprised a civil war didn't break out between Templating and Creative. One of the most common words in the Oracle goes from four to ten letters? This can't possibly go wrong.

Incidentally, Golden Lotus looks like it has a fair bit of potential.

Put a 1/1 creature token into play.
Put a 1/1 creature token into the battlefield.

"Play" turns into "the battlefield" which is 11 extra letters.

Also, the grammar is fucked, too. You don't put anything into the battlefield. It's like the battlefield is a tossed salad bowl. "Put some more Insects into that battlefield!"

The battlefield is flat. You put shit ONTO the battlefield. "I fell ONTO the ground in despair as Wizards of the Coast announced its plan to shove its pedophilic dicks into the asses of classic MTG players everywhere with this change."



And I have one more complaint: I think it actually violates my perception of how the mechanics of Magic worked within the confines of flavor.

I always imagined that I was a Planeswalker (summoning Planeswalkers... ugh), and the other guy was another Planeswalker battling me from a great distance or even a different plane. When we attacked, we sent our summons on arduous missions deep into enemy territory to attempt to wound the enemy Planeswalker (or damage his castle, whatever).

I got this not only from the fact that it would make games of magic totally epic, but I also read at least one original M:tG concept story from Richard Garfield back in 1994 where Garfield describes a battle between two Planeswalkers for control of a land territory. I remember I thought it was a little contrived and tacky when I read it (and I was 5 or 6, so it must have been shit awful), but it gave me a general idea about what Wizards was thinking about, and she only is aware of the enemy Planeswalker through the spells that the enemy was casting.

Also combat and blocking made sense. How your opponent had to attack YOU and couldn't attack your creatures made sense. He only knows where you are, so he sends his guys on a mission to fight you. As the enemy creatures cross into your territory, you can tell your troops to hide and heroically take damage in their stead or you can send your troops over to block.

Some things obviously wouldn't make perfect sense with this depiction (soldiers have to make it back to your base just in time for your untap step every time!), but I'm ok with games having an abstracted depiction of flavor. Magic leaves players open to their own interpretations.

Now it seems like Wizards is shoving its Yu-Gi-Oh flavor down our necks. I'm sure everyone has seen clips from Yu-Gi-Oh (if not, watch Yu-Gi-Oh Abridged on Youtube), but on Yu-Gi-Oh, the players summon huge dragons to a battlefield the size of a basketball court.

It's like you're putting all of your creatures INTO a tiny arena. Then how do creatures NOT block? How are they not constantly in combat? Progenitus does NOT DO ARENAS.


See, the way Magic flavor is failing is Wizards themselves doesn't have a clear depiction about what the hell is going on. Garfield did. He had ideas like Summoning Sickness, Mana Burn, how combat works. Before he created the game, he had a clear idea about what his game was supposed to be representing.

Now we put our guys INTO a blender and press mixer until the Tarmogoyfs rise to the top.

[Solpugid]

Was there some relatively recent point in time where Wizards decided that things weren't going well? This change, honestly, makes a good deal of sense. The flavor is still there, as the concept of a battlefield is rather vague.

Still, this feels pretty alienating to veteran players, and I have to wonder why Wizards felt that things needed to change so drastically and so quickly (Battlefield, new card types, new core set naming schemes, etc.). I've taught dozens of people to play the game, and never once did the dual meaning of "play" hinder this introduction. Is "Battlefield" really going to generate more interest from new players?

[Jak]

This sounds horrible. I just don't understand the point of confusing new players as well as making older players angry. The change does nothing for the game.

[Waikiki]

YOU SUNK MY BATTLESHIP.... thats what battlefield triggers to me.

[dahcmai]

I guess they just thought it was confusing having cards that are variations of the word "play" in different circumstances. That or they plan on getting us used to it now so they can print shit like Raging River again and have it not sound as if you're repeating yourself when you read it.

Either way, it's stupid sounding and stupid to bother with such an old wording. Exiled is even worse in my book. There's entirely too many cards that say "remove from game" on them.

[leander?]

I guess they just thought it was confusing having cards that are variations of the word "play" in different circumstances.

But I don't understand why they needed to change both "plays" into something weird. Why isnt play -> cast enough?.. That solves the problem already, doesn't it?

[Forbiddian]

But I don't understand why they needed to change both "plays" into something weird. Why isnt play -> cast enough?.. That solves the problem already, doesn't it?

Yeah, tru stori:

Mark Rosewater was all like, "Dude, let me play this land."
And then Randy Bueller was all: "OMG, CONFUSION ALERT! We're already "playing" Magic! Could this game get any more confusing with all the double meanings?"
Mark Rosewater responded (All like), "Yeah, let's call it the battlefield, so that people who don't talk English good don't get confuzed.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Changes like this must be like a running joke at Wizards HQ... "So, what can we do to piss veteran players off? Oh, i know, Battlefield! Just tell them they've been confused for years because play doesn't actually mean play but battlefield, just as play doesn't mean play either but cast, those poor sods...".

They know we'll go with it in the end and keep playing the game (or just refuse to use the new words but keep consuming product nonetheless, which is what matters). They have had loads of players complaining several times (fifth edition rules modifications, the new frames, Planeswalkers, etc) but then will always print a cool card or two so we shut up and go back to our decks.

Gameplay won't change and we'll just sound a little bit stupider than we already do whilst playing Magic - "I attack with my 10/10 Lorescale Coatl. Oh yeah, i'll Swords your Coatl away from play, haha. Force of Will your Swords pitching Daze" doesn't quite sound like two adults discussing strategy, does it? I mean, try to convince your mom that somehow Battlefield would make that dialogue sound silly...

That said, i hate Battlefield.

[CallMeLiam]

I get the need to change from Play to Cast.

I also get the need to change In Play to On the Battlefield.

Both of them using play could be confusing, with effects triggering from spells being played and permanents coming into play. That same word there being used for two meanings has confused a few people I've played with. That said, when you change one of them the problem goes away. Changing both is a bit of overkill if you ask me. Plus I can't ever see me saying Battlefield. Throw in the HUGE Oracle changes that this will require, including the exiled zone's flavour being utterly ridiculous when used with older cards and it just sounds like a pretty firm shafting of the existing older playerbase in favour of trying to get new blood.

I don't like it. I won't quit the game over it, but I don't like it.

[Yi Gongbao]

Battlefield and friends - well, we have always known that Wizards are aware of the great allure of this game => they can direct their resources towards new players and screw old ones. Thus the wording.
After all:

I don't like it. I won't quit the game over it, but I don't like it.

I think that sums it up. And let us face it - 12-14-year-olds will love the battlefield, exile and whatever other teenage junk WOTC has to offer.

[Nihil Credo]

My big question for WotC would be: what was wrong with simply "on the field?" It's shorter, just as flavourful, just as unambiguous, doesn't sound nearly as stupid, and works well with noncreature permanents too.

Unless they were so absent-minded as to never think of that option, they must have had a reason to discard it. I just can't think of one.

[AngryTroll]

My big question for WotC would be: what was wrong with simply "on the field?" It's shorter, just as flavourful, just as unambiguous, doesn't sound nearly as stupid, and works well with noncreature permanents too.

Unless they were so absent-minded as to never think of that option, they must have had a reason to discard it. I just can't think of one.

This will probably be what everyone ends up saying, anyways.