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

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

    1 9.09%
  • No

    10 90.91%
Results 1 to 20 of 21

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

Hybrid View

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

    May 2004
    Location

    Northern Virginia
    Posts

    6,627

    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 he’s right and he should say it
    For my confessions, they burned me with fire/
    And found I was for endurance made

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

    May 2004
    Location

    Northern Virginia
    Posts

    6,627

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

    I’m 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

  7. #7

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin View Post
    I’m 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?

  8. #8

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

    A new card type? I’m interested.

    The rate of new releases has indeed led to a lot of bloat. I’ve given up on staying current, and on any format that includes new printings. I just make custom Limited sets for myself and my friends. I’m 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/

  9. #9
    Hymn-Slinging Mod
    H's Avatar
    Join Date

    Sep 2008
    Location

    The U-easy-anna
    Posts

    3,413

    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."
    Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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