View Poll Results: Do you think MTG really needed yet another card type? (Battle)

Voters
9. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    1 11.11%
  • No

    8 88.89%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Do you think MTG really needed yet another card type? (Battle)

  1. #1

    Do you think MTG really needed yet another card type? (Battle)

    Yes, I have no idea what Battle does yet. But I am absolutely certain that Battle's mechanics could have been incorporated into the game with one of the 14!! existing card types without necessitating yet another card type.

    Its been super frustrating trying to teach MTG to others. MTG these days is far less accessible to new players compared to back when most of us learned the game. Before Future Sight, we only needed to learn 6 card types. And it actually made sense why these card types all existed (Differentiating artifacts and enchantments made a lot more sense before they introduced colored artifacts, colorless spells that aren't artifacts, and tappable enchantments ie. Witch's Mist).

    Per rule 300.1, the current card types are artifact, conspiracy, creature, dungeon, enchantment, instant, land, phenomenon, plane, planeswalker, scheme, sorcery, tribal, and vanguard. There is no possible way that Battle couldn't have been tweaked to be a subtype of one these 14 already existing card types. The only way I think Battle would be acceptable is if it were an errata of several existing card types through which WOTC can eliminate many of the card types listed in rule 300.1

    And it's not just card types, back when most of us were introduced to MTG, we didnt need to also have to learn about all sorts of other needless bloat like Day/Night cycles, Sagas, Companions, Monarch, the Venture mechanic and atleast a dozen other junk or parasitic mechanics that were introduced in the past few years.

    I am absolutely sick of how needlessly more complex Wizards makes MTG every year. With the advent of smartphones, streaming services, apps etc, people have a ridiculous number of distractions and both attention spans and motivations to learn new and complex skills have shriveled up as a result. And while many things have reacted by becoming simpler and more streamlined, WOTC has moved MTG in the opposite direction. This is just as big a factor as the rapid pace of card releases and power creep in killing the game. WOTC went from being Hasbro's biggest cash cow to the cause of a 40% drop in it's stock price over the past two years, and I think this needless complexity is a big reason why.
    Last edited by Clark Kant; 01-19-2023 at 01:00 AM.

  2. #2

    Re: Do you think MTG really needed yet another card type? (Battle)

    Geez. I know its cliche and an over used meme, but go outside and touch grass. Youre going to gice yourself a heart attack stressong voet something that you admit no one has the info on yet.


    Im sorry your life sounds so stressful and complicated.
    Last edited by itslarryyo; 01-19-2023 at 07:05 AM. Reason: spellings

  3. #3

    Re: Do you think MTG really needed yet another card type? (Battle)

    Old Magic Player Yells at Cloud

    Let's wait for the release before we hate it. For all we know it's just goyf-ing the next commander set and it's a multiplayer-only thing

  4. #4

    Re: Do you think MTG really needed yet another card type? (Battle)

    Quote Originally Posted by itslarryyo View Post
    Geez. I know its cliche and an over used meme, but go outside and touch grass. Youre going to gice yourself a heart attack stressong voet something that you admit no one has the info on yet.


    Im sorry your life sounds so stressful and complicated.
    TIL that writing 10 sentences about how a game I've played for decades has become inaccessible for newer players, in a forum dedicated to that game = having a heart attack.

  5. #5
    Hymn-Slinging Mod
    H's Avatar
    Join Date

    Sep 2008
    Location

    The U-easy-anna
    Posts

    3,377

    Re: Do you think MTG really needed yet another card type? (Battle)

    Quote Originally Posted by Clark Kant View Post
    And it's not just card types, back when most of us were introduced to MTG, we didnt need to also have to learn about all sorts of other needless bloat like Day/Night cycles, Sagas, Companions, Monarch, the Venture mechanic and atleast a dozen other junk or parasitic mechanics that were introduced in the past few years.
    I mean, you are correct, but I think this is actually a symptom of a different problem, that being the insane release pace.

    Design space is just absurdly crowded now, so there have to be "gimmicks," parasitic mechanisms and downright silly nonsense because there is only so much that could realistically be done with the Evergreen things. Or, at least, "easily" be done, in the sense of being able to push out as much product in the release windows they have come up with now.

    That being said, Tribal should never have been a Type anyway, so it is hard for me to feel bad about "losing" it as a Type. And likely whatever "Battle" is, will likely be a gimmick that will likely either be busted (Initiative) or completely irrelevant (Attractions), because there generally isn't any middle ground, especially not for Eternal formats (and to a lesser extent Non-rotating ones too).
    "The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
    óKaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order

  6. #6
    (' ' '\( 0 ,o)/''')
    TheInfamousBearAssassin's Avatar
    Join Date

    May 2004
    Location

    Northern Virginia
    Posts

    6,564

    Re: Do you think MTG really needed yet another card type? (Battle)

    Quote Originally Posted by itslarryyo View Post
    Geez. I know its cliche and an over used meme, but go outside and touch grass. Youre going to gice yourself a heart attack stressong voet something that you admit no one has the info on yet.


    Im sorry your life sounds so stressful and complicated.
    Nah heís right and he should say it
    For my confessions, they burned me with fire/
    And found I was for endurance made

  7. #7
    (' ' '\( 0 ,o)/''')
    TheInfamousBearAssassin's Avatar
    Join Date

    May 2004
    Location

    Northern Virginia
    Posts

    6,564

    Re: Do you think MTG really needed yet another card type? (Battle)

    Iím really jealous of how Wizards said they were going to exploit and shit on and rob D&D players and D&D players all responded by collectively kicking their teeth in until they cried uncle. Wish Magic players had that kind of spine and self respect
    For my confessions, they burned me with fire/
    And found I was for endurance made

  8. #8

    Re: Do you think MTG really needed yet another card type? (Battle)

    Quote Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin View Post
    Iím really jealous of how Wizards said they were going to exploit and shit on and rob D&D players and D&D players all responded by collectively kicking their teeth in until they cried uncle. Wish Magic players had that kind of spine and self respect
    What about Battle do you not like?

  9. #9

    Re: Do you think MTG really needed yet another card type? (Battle)

    A new card type? Iím interested.

    The rate of new releases has indeed led to a lot of bloat. Iíve given up on staying current, and on any format that includes new printings. I just make custom Limited sets for myself and my friends. Iím interested in spoiler seasons as a chance to see intriguing new card designs and mechanics, but no more so than in r/custommtg (custom card reddit) and r/MTGNeuralNet. Those AIs come up with some nice designs. Check out, for example, this dual land:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/MTGNeuralNe...by_cocoamix86/

  10. #10
    Hamburglar Hlelpler
    TsumiBand's Avatar
    Join Date

    Aug 2005
    Location

    Nebraska
    Posts

    2,765

    Re: Do you think MTG really needed yet another card type? (Battle)

    We don't even know what Battle does yet, afaict, so why assume that its unknown effect fits into the existing card types? I would waaaay rather see a new card type than get an effect shoehorned into a type that makes a mess of it.

    To be fair I don't think every subtle change to function requires its own card type, in fact there are cases where it never should have happened at all. I am no Rosewater stan, but his whole thing about removing Instants as a card type in favor of either "Sorceries with Flash" or subtyping it makes perfect sense to me. Having multiple ways to determine the timing restriction of an action in this game is dumb as fuck, the game would have been far cleaner with "Instant Creature" or "Instant Sorcery" in place of Instants, Sorceries, and then other card types having Flash.

    Having said that - I recall people pissing and moaning about how Equipment was just Enchant Creature with extra steps. They sure could have implemented Equipment as a different kind of Aura, but separating it into a different card type entirely is more communicative and makes assessing them much simpler regardless of which zone they're in.

    People had a similar complaint about Planeswalkers, that they're "just enchantments you can attack" or some shit. TBH I hated the original implementation of 'walkers, all that damage redirection crap was very stupid and it poked a hole in that change from "any target" to "target creature or player" that I'm not sure the game has totally wallpapered over yet. But ultimately, I am glad that walker-style Enchantments were not the preferred implementation.

    I think we get too used to dealing with Magic interactions as being functional analogues of each other and it's a bad habit to be in. Giant Growth doesn't "counter" Lightning Bolt just because it keeps your Llanowar Elves from hitting the graveyard but some players think of it in those terms. We could argue about whether artifacts with continuous effects are "just enchantments" but there are enough differences in what interacts with those two card types that it's reductive to do so. We gotta RTFC first before we decide it's too extra.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dissection View Post
    Creature type - 'Fuck you mooooooom'
    Quote Originally Posted by Secretly.A.Bee View Post
    EDIT: Tsumi, you are silly.

  11. #11

    Re: Do you think MTG really needed yet another card type? (Battle)

    Equipment could have been enchantment subtype, but at the time colored artifacts didn't exist and colorless enchantmrnts didn't either, and the first equipment was supposed to represent mundane objects.
    A morning star and a long bow are rightfully artifacts not enchants.
    Maybe plating and it's ilk with colored attach costs should have been enchantments but not bonesplitter

  12. #12
    Hamburglar Hlelpler
    TsumiBand's Avatar
    Join Date

    Aug 2005
    Location

    Nebraska
    Posts

    2,765

    Re: Do you think MTG really needed yet another card type? (Battle)

    Quote Originally Posted by FourDogsinaHorseSuit View Post
    Equipment could have been enchantment subtype, but at the time colored artifacts didn't exist and colorless enchantmrnts didn't either, and the first equipment was supposed to represent mundane objects.
    A morning star and a long bow are rightfully artifacts not enchants.
    Maybe plating and it's ilk with colored attach costs should have been enchantments but not bonesplitter
    Right, like - they could have done those things in Mirrodin and given us colorless Auras that don't hit the trash when the attached creature dies, but it doesn't convey the same idea as just picking up a physical weapon and it doesn't jam a ton of new functionality into enchantments, it's a whole-cloth execution

    It's entirely possible that Battles are just fucked-up Sorceries but making that assessment before we can even read one is premature
    Quote Originally Posted by Dissection View Post
    Creature type - 'Fuck you mooooooom'
    Quote Originally Posted by Secretly.A.Bee View Post
    EDIT: Tsumi, you are silly.

  13. #13

    Re: Do you think MTG really needed yet another card type? (Battle)

    Quote Originally Posted by FourDogsinaHorseSuit View Post
    Equipment could have been enchantment subtype, but at the time colored artifacts didn't exist and colorless enchantmrnts didn't either, and the first equipment was supposed to represent mundane objects.
    ...
    For what it's worth, there was proto-equipment in artifact form like Ashnod's Battle Gear or Endoskeleton.

  14. #14

    Re: Do you think MTG really needed yet another card type? (Battle)

    The original Equipment: Lance
    :)

  15. #15

    Re: Do you think MTG really needed yet another card type? (Battle)

    I should say, I don't have a huge problem with new card types per se, but my confidence in their design choices isn't great when I look at how venture into the dungeon and initiative are set up. I saw a bit of a Plan 9 review of a new set where he rated a card "words out of 10," and that seems like an apt criticism of the current design philosophy.

    I'm certainly of the opinion that they ought to formalize the difference between creature types and other subtypes in the rules and get rid of the tribal type entirely.

  16. #16

    Re: Do you think MTG really needed yet another card type? (Battle)

    Tribal should have been a supertype signifying that the typed object is going to have a creature type.
    Like how legendary signifies the card is somehow different then normal creatures tribal would say this sorcery is different.
    I feel so strongly about this I just assumed it was the case until I looked it up years later. I never owned a goyf so I wouldn't have seen it there

  17. #17
    Member
    z0anthr0pe's Avatar
    Join Date

    Apr 2021
    Location

    Oz
    Posts

    21

    Re: Do you think MTG really needed yet another card type? (Battle)

    DRC in delver and other delerium cards will be happy with another card type. As if delver needed any more help

  18. #18
    Member

    Join Date

    Jan 2005
    Location

    I actually live in actual Chicago
    Posts

    678

    Re: Do you think MTG really needed yet another card type? (Battle)

    Withholding judgement until I hear how they work.

    Expecting it to be another push towards everything being a midrange value pile though.

  19. #19
    ..sry, whut? ◔̯◔
    Humphrey's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jan 2008
    Location

    Germany
    Posts

    728

    Re: Do you think MTG really needed yet another card type? (Battle)

    whats the new type? post a card pls
    Got tired of Legacy and you like drafts? Try my Paupercube What?

  20. #20

    Re: Do you think MTG really needed yet another card type? (Battle)

    Quote Originally Posted by Humphrey View Post
    whats the new type? post a card pls
    They haven't been spoiled or leaked yet.
    All we know is they're DFC and the art is horizonal

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)