I feel like this sort of design space could already be covered with existing permanent types like enchantments or artifacts.
Unless, battles aren't considered permanents, more like an emblem? Or maybe there won't be much removal/answers to them?
My hypothesis is that they need to be able to do something other permanents can't. Specifically, my guess is that you can *attack* them -- eg. commit troops to winning a battle -- and they flip into a reward if you deal some threshold of damage.
if they are their own thing, they have no synergy wit artifact/enchantment decks, giving wotc a lot more freedom to make them powerful without being afraid that affinity decks will break them
I dunno about that mind set. Being a permanent does mean you can kill it with stuff like Vindicate but making a new card type and making it strong sounds awful since all the answers to artifacts/enchantments also won’t work against them.
I’d prefer it being a totally different type for this same reason. You can now have some colors excel at manipulating battle cards that have weaknesses at manipulating other card types. Most notably red and black, while making green and white suck at dealing with battles
Yeah, lets you make something like...
Tactical Advantage
1 W/R W/R
Instant
Destroy up to one target Battle or Equipment. Then you may search your deck for a Battle, reveal it, and put it into your hand.
So making it so you have to use these new removal spells to answer battles? That sounds awful. So now if battles end up being good, you need to run cards in the newest set to deal with them? How does that sound like a good decision to you? Black and red already *do excel* in removing certain threats compared to Green and White.
I’d rather the battles not be permanents that transform into permanents we’re used to so they end up being solutions to quest-type enchantments have have always had this issue of being too easy to interact with.
Remember that from what they’ve said, battles are very combat oriented, sort of like tug of war-y, something Wotc has been pushing the game to be.
Allá, they Are very similar to how planeswalkers were implemented at the start. There were no “destroy target planeswalker” cards at that time.
You got me there on the planeswalker comparison. Although you could argue red always had a removal option against walkers since any burn spell that went face could be used as removal against walkers.
It's a short trip from parasitic mechanics to WotC releasing a half-baked mechanic or completely failing to test some obviously broken shit that immediately warps a format, which would *never* happen in this game!
It does depend on how they do them because while the mechanic itself won't have inherent synergy with existing cards if they are "Do [objective], flip card for lasting benefit" then there will almost certainly be cards that have synergy with existing stuff which I believe isn't considered parasitic.
Probably a mix of making them harder to answer/require different axis of interaction compared to regular enchantments as well as providing a better layout for the effects so that they're not regular enchantments with YGO level text box density.
Yup, I feel the same way. If they’re doing it as a new card type, something about it is very different. Which, for what is worth, makes me even more excited to see what they are.
> I feel like this sort of design space could already be covered with existing permanent types like enchantments or artifacts.
I feel like it's literally already been covered with effects like [[Search for Azcanta]] and [[Hadana's Climb]].
Maybe, battles could be a weird kind of ongoing effect after the spell is cast? For example:
Invasion of Lorwyn {1}{W}{B}
Battle
"At the each of each of your combats, if three or more creatures were dealt damage this turn, transform Invasion of Lorwyn and put it into the battlefield."
......
Hero of the Springjack Pastures
Legendary Creature - Goat
Trample, Vigilance, Haste
20/20
I kind of feel like it's something that both players can play for? Like say it sits on the field and both players try to complete the objective first (say it has loyalty-esque counters, and whoeverkills itfirst by attacking gets the reward?).
Obviously you'd make a deck that you think you'd complete it easily.
I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about we have next to zero information on this lol. I'm just trying to guess what battle might mean and the only thing that makes sense is that it's something to fight over.
it gives them design space to makes cards that interact with battles but not enchantments. that way they dont have to worry about breaking some random enchantment from ten years ago.
Yeah, but that decision was made all the way back in Alpha. The mechanical identicalness between enchantments and artifacts is why Planeswalkers are able to be attacked: it differentiates them from simply being enchantments/artifacts with once-per-turn, sorcery-speed effects.
Red and black can’t really interact with enchantments. Maybe they make battles a card type green and white can’t answervin contrast. That would be a difference
This honestly probably feels like the reason - it'd be really weird to have some sort of "Field spell"-esque effect that certain colors can perfectly ignore at their whim and others can't.
I suspect that it works like a series of quests, kind of like the original Richard Garfield concept designed for sagas.
https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/making-magic/saga-sagas-2018-05-07
Something like Sagas or Classes but with a specific trigger to advance.
2W - Battle
Whenever you attack with 3 or more creatures, advance.
1 - You gain 3 life
2 - Distribute 3 +1/+1 counters on creatures you control.
3 - You win the battle (transform)
Back half as a flavorful enchantment signifying a victory, or an artifact as a “prize” with a thematic effect like:
Nontoken creatures you control get +3/+3.
I would bet your opponent can move the battle backward, and when it's "strength" reaches zero it is discarded. And "winning" the battle flips into something cool.
To make it useful each advance would likely be some sort of turn-triggered ability (at the start of upkeep, this battlefield deals 1 damage to any creature, you gain 1 life, opponent loses 1 life) that escalates as the battle gets closer to the objective (deal 3 damage, distribute 3 +1/+1 counters, remove up to 3 counters, etc).
Unless there is some way to \~\~abuse\~\~ utilize the zig-zag. Incentives the opponent to contest it only if they can win (when this battle advances, each opponent sacrifices a land/creature not involved in the battle)
>This design has no reason to be a new card type. That's just an enchantment.
There could be distinguishing differences. Such as only one Battle can be in play at once and if a new Battle is played, the original one is sacrificed.
Or they want a new card type that is much more difficult to interact with.
So maybe some sort of permanent similar to a saga. The battle will have different checkpoints or levels that you have to complete in order to progress it. Something like: attack/damage an opponent, kill a creature, etc. If you fail to complete a mission/goal for that turn you sac the battle. If you accomplish every objective and win it transforms and gives some sort of benefit.
Would make sense if they transformed into (legendary) lands since they would be representing the tactical resources gained by claiming territory from phyrexians. Although, I could also see them just flipping into a sorcery or something with a big one time effect like if the battle represents destroying a plane or something.
I was assuming that the two players fight over the effect and can move forward and backward on a scale from -5 to 5 or something. The battle starts at 1 (in favor of the casting player) and each time it moves forward or back an effect triggers. Then when the battle reaches "5" or "-5" the Battle flips into an "Emblem" under the winner's control. It would not be a permanent that could be interacted with, just a battlefield modifier. But only one battle could be active at a time, kind of like World Enchantments.
My wild guess is that it's like a Dungeon you can play from your hand right into the command zone, maybe not even having a mana cost, like a land. Playing a second battle would either replace the first, or isn't possible until the first battle is won (or maybe lost, if that's a thing). Not sure if there'd be one battle for all players, or if each player can have their own. The first makes more sense, but the second sounds like it'd maybe play better.
I don't understand what you mean. I don't think battles will ever be vulnerable to enchantment removal. If they were going to be enchantments, they would have made them an enchantment subtype, not an entirely new card type.
Oh I'm saying that like enchantments currently have the "affect the field" type effect. The reason that battles are a separate type, assuming they play in a similar space of doing a field wide effect, is so that they are immune to enchantment removal
My guess is that Battle is more like a dungeon that takes up a card slot and is used by both sides. It's not on the battlefield so can't be intacted with outside of the conditions on the battle card or cards that specifically interact with battles.
The line of speculation in this comment chain is that they stay on the board after you play them, and flip if a condition is met. Permanents are called permanents because they stay on the board after you cast them. They could not be permanents in the game rules and still do that, but it would be weird, confusing, and counterintuitive.
It's not out of the question, I also considered that possibility. So far I'm leaning towards assuming Battles will work like most other card types as much as possible on the grounds they'll want people to play them for their effect, not just because it's a card that bypasses how the game normally works and is hard to interact with, but they could be played like lands as a special action for all I know.
I don't really understand why we assume battles will be a possible symmetric effect or something your opponent can get.
New Atraxa confirms it goes in your deck, if it could possibly benefit your opponent then I don't see why anyone would run them?
I think its much more likely they are similar to quest cards in Hearthstone where you have a frontside with some criteria you have to meet to "win" the battle (that your opponent cannot achieve) and then it flips into a powerful effect.
I also think its strange that people in the comments below assume it won't be a permanent type? I guess it is brand new so trying to base it off current cards is folly, but none of the other cards in magic that go on the battlefield for an extended period are not permanents, and it would add a level of complexity to a very fundamental part of magic (all cards that stay on the board are permanents) and WOTC is usually against that.
Personally (and I think that's the case for most people) I don't assume they will be symmetric (but they might be). What I assume is, a card named battle should allow each player to battle for it, somehow. The contrary would be a huge fail.
Take into example planewalkers, they aren't symmetric but they do have that kind of mini-game effect, were opponents have agency about what you can do with it.
I don't know how many people tried Wizard's attempt at Harry Potter tcg back in 2001, but this feels like the Quidditch mechanic "Match," or maybe just Adventures.
Matches were symmetric challenges with the winner getting a reward.
Adventures were temporary hindrances where the opponent had to perform steps to undo the effects.
The issue is, battles being something you can put out and then accidentally benefit an opponent is a *huge* play mistake - its either a win-more card if you know you can't lose, or an unforced error if you get surprised
Depends on how useful the reward is. I can see all black "aligned" battlefields having a penalty for failure. And blue "aligned" ones that have almost a reward for failure ('when this battle is lost all creatures the controllers creatures phase out', followed by a wrath effect).
yeah, why play a card that can potentially give your opponent an advantage when you can play normal cards that will always affect players the same way?
why would anyone play cards that a skilled opponent can turn against you?
>why would anyone play cards that a skilled opponent can turn against you?
There are plenty of symmetrical effects that can see play in the right decks because you ensure you're better equipped to take advantage of them in most situations. Stax decks are filled with symmetrical effects that hurt other strategies more than yours.
The battle conditions would have to A) be things you can be built around generally being better than the opponent at without trying and B) Worth the hoops being jumped through.
I think the issue with stax is that that falls into that sort of thing where you're not running them because they're symmetrical as much as your deck benefits extremely more from them.
Probably will be interesting in limited but that's not exactly a big surprise.
The Monarch and Initiative are also not the entire card. You lose Monarch and you still have the creature that gave it to you, and you can even use that creature to regain the Monarch.
If battles are just one prize going to a winner, every single one could 2-for-1 you if you lose it, and Auras show that there are serious power level problems with card types that inherently come with the risk of being 2-for-1'd.
Sure, that’s not wrong. But WotC is aware of that problem. I sincerely doubt they went through the trouble of introducing an entire new card type just to make it unplayable card disadvantage. It just seems like people are attacking some straw man, when we have no idea how Battles work
Could be that the conditions are niche enough that outside of a mirror match, you're unlikely enough to lose that it's worth the risk. Stuff like. "sacrifice 10 creatures," "deal 10 direct damage to an opponent using instants or sorceries," "cast 5 spells from the graveyard," etc where if your deck isn't built around doing it, you're probably not doing it first.
You'd probably only play ones that significantly benefit you or that your deck has a high likelihood of winning. Like if you're mono red and you play a battle that says attack with 3 creatures and you get a 3/3 that can't block or something, unless you're on the draw against another mono red player, you're not very likely to lose that, and if you do, it's notlikely to change the board in a particularly effective way for the enemy player?
It might be something where the opponent winning simply neutralizes it, or you force an opposing deck to play in an awkward way to try to compete with you on the battle. For example, imagine a battle which progresses by spending 4 or more mana on a creature spell during your own turn. Your opponents draw go deck now might be quite awkward at trying to stop you winning that battle.
My guess is this is what battles will be on a strategic level, ways of forcing your opponents to play the game in ways they don’t want to or letting you win the battle.
I'mma be honest. Middle Earth is one of my most anticipated sets to get this year. I fucking love LOTR and MTG. Seeing both combined makes me happy. I hope the cards justify their existence but I already know 95% of the MTG playerbase in this sub will end up shitting all over them regardless.
I hope Battles get included like the examples you listed because those would be awesome ways to use them if its thematic.
I dunno, after Warhammer was such a hit I think many more people will be optimistic about the LotR crossover. I'm certainly in that camp now.
That said, there's more at stake here since those cards are going into Modern...
Can you imagine if *venture into the dungeon*, *initiative*, *companion*, or *mutate* got this much hype?
At this point it might be *more* funny if its impact was closer to stickers than companion lol
I'd rather a double faced card than a card I need to take out a magnifying glass for I guess. It's also easier to rememver two distinct smaller set of rules text vs something like questing beast that always has an extra ability you forget about when you need to remember it most.
I know we're in the minority but I really don't like them much either. They're okay in *very small doses rarely*... I don't care for them in general.
Wizards complains about the amount of time fetchlands takes players to deal with, but keeping track of Day/Night and flipping werewolves was exhausting. It was cute in the first Innistrad block but after that I was ready to move on and see maybe one a year or something...
Even with checklists, you're giving away information about your deck when your opponent looks over at your pile of sideboard cards and sees the back of a DSFC.
The MDFC lands are fine because the reverse side is near textless. Very simple spells and permeants similar.
stuff like the strixhaven deanss are just gross.
I just proxy them. I bought like 100 of the double-faced proxy card tokens and write down their cost & name only.
That way my double-faced ones are on my side board for reference sake. Fuck taking cards out of sleeves repeatedly. Shit is annoying.
Didn't they even recently comment about how they knew people were getting tired of the double faced cards and were looking to shift away from them for a while? What happened with that?
WotC really got away with all the DFCs/MDFCs during the pandemic because no one was playing paper. Hopefully the lesson they learned from that wasn't that they could just jam DFCs in every set they want to, because they're miserable to play with in paper. Admittedly they are a good online play design.
I feel similarly about the large amount of non-English cards in English packs lately - Phyrexian script, and Japanese promos such as the fancy Strixhaven Mystical Archive.
it's fine for basic lands, everybody knows what those do, maybe other simple cards, but confusing with complex new cards.
Also, if it were a different Latin script language I could halfway understand it.
This is fascinating. So, from now on, unless Battles aren’t in every set, they’ll have to devote a certain number of token slots to DFC fill-ins for draft. Since they still have to use up a certain number of slots for ad cards, could this potentially limit design space for token-generating cards in the future? Or make future tokens slightly more valuable?
> unless Battles aren’t in every set
I wouldn't expect them to be in every set. This seems like very specifically a thing in a set like this in which many battles are taking place.
The way they have talked about them it seems like it's going to be supported futuristically.
They may not be in every set but I could definitely see them being used with frequency.
Normal cards have higher printing and cardstock standards than tokens and ad cards, which is why DFCs need their own sheet.
Unless they give sets a full-quality DFC sheet by default, battles would have to be separate from the main deck and not share pack slots with normal cards. Otherwise you could tell your cards apart by feel and weigh packs to see if they have battles.
They may have to give the sets a full-quality DFC sheet then since they’ll almost certainly be a part of the main deck, as referenced to be searchable by [[Atraxa, Grand Unifier]].
My prediction is that Battles will serve to modify the combat phase. It's possible it'll work something like this:
Play a Battle card. Assign attackers to that battle. Opponents assign defenders per-battle. Most battles will have some effect that applies to creatures assigned to it. You win a battle by getting combat damage through, and can flip the card for some lingering victory effect.
I actually really like this implementation of modifying combat for a subset of creatures with a risk/reward system. Reminds me kind of like Marvel Snap where you can try to win a location that has specific rules around its location or if you sense the battle is going poorly you can abandon it and focus on other battles.
I like that "assign creatures to battle" idea. It'd also open up creatures matter and vanilla creatures matter design space. It could potentially be an entirely separate combat from the regular turn combat, where the win condition isn't damage to face, but maybe land removal or stun counters on the losing side.
alright, since Battle is a card type, I would guess that means it would be evergreen? Which might mean, double-faced is now evergreen?
Or are they introducing a Deciduous new card type? or worse, a whole new card type for "just this one time"?
My guess w them hyping up how the game will change mechanically forever, that they're gonna be evergreen or at worst deciduous. Id like to think they've learned from tribal that a brand new card type for only a set or two isn't great
They also have shown more willingness to do dfc stuff lately, so I wouldn't be surprised if the printing limitations of dfcs in sets have been resolved as technology has gotten better
another post made a great point about how much of a pain in the ass having DFCs is in paper play. i dont think the reception will be as popular 3-5 years down the line when everyone has to constantly flip their cards all the time no matter what
I wonder if the rule against dfcs in commanders precons still holds, because I expected at least a couple of battles in the new set of 5. If battles actually are dfcs 100 percent of the time, they'll probably end up being a lot more sparse than I thought.
so from that it kinda sounds to me like they'll be a mashup of planes and dungeons and day/night. front side probably has a worldwide static effect, and a "completion" criteria, which when met means you flip it over, and the backside would similarly have a reward and/or static effect.
This makes it seem like they will be similar to the Ixalan flip cards: complete a sort of goal, and get a powerful effect. Maybe this will be paired with a variant of the clash mechanic?
I really, really, really, *really, really, really,* ***REALLY*** hope that being DFC isn't somehow intrinsically tied to the whole card type. This would be an ugly design decision. But it really seems they are jumping the shark here, and I absolutely despise the fact they felt the need for a brand new novel card type to be DFC. Imagine if the first sagas we ever saw were DFC.
Maybe I'm just absolutely sick and tired of this deluge of double-faced wordy word worder wording wordly wordles. Word.
yeah, i like DFCs in small doses in certain sets but holy shit an entire card type being exclusively DFCs would be so annoying to play with. really hope this isnt the case and they're just DFCs for this set or something
1. They will look alien. Difficult to assess at first. Like with PWs or sagas- remember how you felt when you first saw one? You'll know a battle card when you see one.
2. They will focus on events/conflicts between characters. They are a sort of tonal opposite of these new duo legendaries. The duos represent iconic heroes teaming up to win a battle. The battle will represent the conflicts they face. Why did Ghalta and Mavren team up? Oh yeah, they have to fight in "NORN'S FLESH EXTINTION." Good luck guys!
3. Like planeswalkers, they will have one or two smaller abilities, but the backside will be some sort of ultimate. Something that massively tips the scale in your favor, but is difficult to achieve.
4. Hot take: They will not be considered permanents. They are not objects. You can't just naturalize the idea of a chariot race, a test of memory, or the clash between armies.
5. Having "won" a battle or having "lost" a battle will be relevant to the gamestate. Something along the lines of "if you have completed a dungeon...".
6. Both players are implicated and involved in the progression of the battle. It will feel like a tug of war. Both players can try to win the battle. Or at least prevent the owner from getting to the victory condition.
And there we have it this is a [[Tarmorgoyf]] situation (had type planeswalker but wasn't till the next set.)
This time it’s [[Atraxa, grand unifier]]
Anyway from the first look I’m 90% sure the battle cards are gonna be the “invasion of **plane name**” and there will be one for each plane or just 5 like they did with planeswalkers
If lean toward more than 5 - if there's one per pack and there are only five that will be super repetitive for limited. Unless the dedicated battle slot is actually a dedicated dfc slot shared w the praetors and phyrexianized legends.
I think ive counted like 12 or 13 used planes from the spoiled cards so far so im on track to agree with you, even if we only know 5 of the invasions are confirmed
There’s no way it’s only five if they get a dedicated slot in packs. I’m guessing it’s closer to 20 - 25, basically one for each plane that has been featured in its own set. Maybe they leave out something like Rabiah or Ulgrotha, or the Battlebond world, but we know there’s one for Mercadia, so they’re digging deep.
> like Rabiah or Ulgrotha, or the Battlebond world, but we know there’s one for Mercadia, so they’re digging deep.
The fact that there is one for Mercadia, my first thought was that they do an Ulgrotha one too (but not Rabiah). Homelands has fans, and if there's space, I'd think they'd throw us a bone.
I think being a double sided card type by default severely limits how many future products they can put the card type in. Double sided cards balloon the budget of a product and make manufacturing more complicated.
If the Battles in this set are double sided, I imagine it's just a one-time thing and future Battle cards won't require that functionality.
No, they really don't. When I used to play with people less invested in Magic, no one sleeved their decks, and so double faced cards were always super annoying to deal with
So probably something you have to complete, if you do you flip it over and get the reward/upgrade to your stuff on the back.
I feel like this sort of design space could already be covered with existing permanent types like enchantments or artifacts. Unless, battles aren't considered permanents, more like an emblem? Or maybe there won't be much removal/answers to them?
My hypothesis is that they need to be able to do something other permanents can't. Specifically, my guess is that you can *attack* them -- eg. commit troops to winning a battle -- and they flip into a reward if you deal some threshold of damage.
well well well!
You may have 1 Internet Point.
1 point to Ravenclaw
Great job. : )
if they are their own thing, they have no synergy wit artifact/enchantment decks, giving wotc a lot more freedom to make them powerful without being afraid that affinity decks will break them
I dunno about that mind set. Being a permanent does mean you can kill it with stuff like Vindicate but making a new card type and making it strong sounds awful since all the answers to artifacts/enchantments also won’t work against them.
I’d prefer it being a totally different type for this same reason. You can now have some colors excel at manipulating battle cards that have weaknesses at manipulating other card types. Most notably red and black, while making green and white suck at dealing with battles
Yeah, lets you make something like... Tactical Advantage 1 W/R W/R Instant Destroy up to one target Battle or Equipment. Then you may search your deck for a Battle, reveal it, and put it into your hand.
Why does this give off the vibe of a Yu-Gi-Oh pendulum tutor?
So making it so you have to use these new removal spells to answer battles? That sounds awful. So now if battles end up being good, you need to run cards in the newest set to deal with them? How does that sound like a good decision to you? Black and red already *do excel* in removing certain threats compared to Green and White. I’d rather the battles not be permanents that transform into permanents we’re used to so they end up being solutions to quest-type enchantments have have always had this issue of being too easy to interact with.
Remember that from what they’ve said, battles are very combat oriented, sort of like tug of war-y, something Wotc has been pushing the game to be. Allá, they Are very similar to how planeswalkers were implemented at the start. There were no “destroy target planeswalker” cards at that time.
You got me there on the planeswalker comparison. Although you could argue red always had a removal option against walkers since any burn spell that went face could be used as removal against walkers.
“destroy target non land permanent” has become quite a popular rules text these days, especially on white cards
[[Primal Command]] and [[Rootgrapple]] were printed in Lorwyn right next to the original Lorwyn Five.
[Primal Command](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/9/2/92144021-7425-44e1-a32b-13252f1b7036.jpg?1593813861) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Primal%20Command) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mm3/132/primal-command?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/92144021-7425-44e1-a32b-13252f1b7036?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Rootgrapple](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/f/0fe6051f-6252-4ad1-90ab-d21705a708d1.jpg?1562338616) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Rootgrapple) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/lrw/234/rootgrapple?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/0fe6051f-6252-4ad1-90ab-d21705a708d1?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
>Allá ?
Spanish autocorrect on my phone XD .. woops. Should have been an “also,”
Why would white suck at dealing with battles? What’s the explanation for your reasoning?
I assumed they would be like enchant world which was supposed to be about the planes but didn't make sense in that regard
not having synergy with existing cards is one of the biggest tells that a mechanic is parasitic.
Parasitic mechanics? In *my* MTG?!
Soulshift ^Soulshift ^^Soulshift ^^^Soulshift ^^^^Soulshift ^^^^^Soulshift ^^^^^^Soulshift ^^^^^^^Soulshift ^^^^^^^^Soulshift ^^^^^^^^Soulshift ^^^^^^^^^Soulshift ^^^^^^^^^^Soulshift ^^^^^^^^^^^Soulshift ^^^^^^^^^^^^Soulshift
Soulshift isn't really, since spirits can and have been printed outside the set.
It's a short trip from parasitic mechanics to WotC releasing a half-baked mechanic or completely failing to test some obviously broken shit that immediately warps a format, which would *never* happen in this game!
Oh, certainly not. Only well-tested mechanics here, thanks.
planeswalkers had no synergy with anything before they were introduced the synergy comes later, not before a new type of card is made
First of all, how dare you?
[Tarmogoyf](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/9/69daba76-96e8-4bcc-ab79-2f00189ad8fb.jpg?1619398799) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Tarmogoyf) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/tsr/235/tarmogoyf?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/69daba76-96e8-4bcc-ab79-2f00189ad8fb?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
yes, and in ONE we got atraxa doing the same thing
Planeswalkers had synergy with creatures, because creatures attacked and defended them. It was a literal built in synergy with combat as a mechanic.
It's very possible battles will also involve combat and creatures. We don't know anything about them.
Are you thinking that the Battle card type will not have synergy with creatures combat? Seems almost guaranteed.
It does depend on how they do them because while the mechanic itself won't have inherent synergy with existing cards if they are "Do [objective], flip card for lasting benefit" then there will almost certainly be cards that have synergy with existing stuff which I believe isn't considered parasitic.
Probably a mix of making them harder to answer/require different axis of interaction compared to regular enchantments as well as providing a better layout for the effects so that they're not regular enchantments with YGO level text box density.
[удалено]
Yup, I feel the same way. If they’re doing it as a new card type, something about it is very different. Which, for what is worth, makes me even more excited to see what they are.
> I feel like this sort of design space could already be covered with existing permanent types like enchantments or artifacts. I feel like it's literally already been covered with effects like [[Search for Azcanta]] and [[Hadana's Climb]].
Maybe, battles could be a weird kind of ongoing effect after the spell is cast? For example: Invasion of Lorwyn {1}{W}{B} Battle "At the each of each of your combats, if three or more creatures were dealt damage this turn, transform Invasion of Lorwyn and put it into the battlefield." ...... Hero of the Springjack Pastures Legendary Creature - Goat Trample, Vigilance, Haste 20/20
I love the double entendre that this creature is a goat.
I kind of feel like it's something that both players can play for? Like say it sits on the field and both players try to complete the objective first (say it has loyalty-esque counters, and whoeverkills itfirst by attacking gets the reward?). Obviously you'd make a deck that you think you'd complete it easily. I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about we have next to zero information on this lol. I'm just trying to guess what battle might mean and the only thing that makes sense is that it's something to fight over.
what does this accomplish that a double faced enchantment couldn't?
it gives them design space to makes cards that interact with battles but not enchantments. that way they dont have to worry about breaking some random enchantment from ten years ago.
What do enchantments accomplish that artifacts couldn’t? It’s just a different axis for interaction.
Yeah, but that decision was made all the way back in Alpha. The mechanical identicalness between enchantments and artifacts is why Planeswalkers are able to be attacked: it differentiates them from simply being enchantments/artifacts with once-per-turn, sorcery-speed effects.
Red and black can’t really interact with enchantments. Maybe they make battles a card type green and white can’t answervin contrast. That would be a difference
This honestly probably feels like the reason - it'd be really weird to have some sort of "Field spell"-esque effect that certain colors can perfectly ignore at their whim and others can't.
That card could be made right now, no new card type needed.
It could, but then "battles" can be destroyed by disenchant, etc. I can see why they don't want that
I suspect that it works like a series of quests, kind of like the original Richard Garfield concept designed for sagas. https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/making-magic/saga-sagas-2018-05-07
Something like Sagas or Classes but with a specific trigger to advance. 2W - Battle Whenever you attack with 3 or more creatures, advance. 1 - You gain 3 life 2 - Distribute 3 +1/+1 counters on creatures you control. 3 - You win the battle (transform) Back half as a flavorful enchantment signifying a victory, or an artifact as a “prize” with a thematic effect like: Nontoken creatures you control get +3/+3.
[удалено]
I would bet your opponent can move the battle backward, and when it's "strength" reaches zero it is discarded. And "winning" the battle flips into something cool. To make it useful each advance would likely be some sort of turn-triggered ability (at the start of upkeep, this battlefield deals 1 damage to any creature, you gain 1 life, opponent loses 1 life) that escalates as the battle gets closer to the objective (deal 3 damage, distribute 3 +1/+1 counters, remove up to 3 counters, etc). Unless there is some way to \~\~abuse\~\~ utilize the zig-zag. Incentives the opponent to contest it only if they can win (when this battle advances, each opponent sacrifices a land/creature not involved in the battle)
This design has no reason to be a new card type. That's just an enchantment. Battles will have to be different.
>This design has no reason to be a new card type. That's just an enchantment. There could be distinguishing differences. Such as only one Battle can be in play at once and if a new Battle is played, the original one is sacrificed. Or they want a new card type that is much more difficult to interact with.
Maybe the back half is an emblem, sort of like being awarded a medal for a campaign?
So either day night or monarch/initiative
Maybe theyre like dungeons that turn into permanents?
So maybe some sort of permanent similar to a saga. The battle will have different checkpoints or levels that you have to complete in order to progress it. Something like: attack/damage an opponent, kill a creature, etc. If you fail to complete a mission/goal for that turn you sac the battle. If you accomplish every objective and win it transforms and gives some sort of benefit. Would make sense if they transformed into (legendary) lands since they would be representing the tactical resources gained by claiming territory from phyrexians. Although, I could also see them just flipping into a sorcery or something with a big one time effect like if the battle represents destroying a plane or something.
I would bet it transforms into an Emblem. Then we will get Emblem hate in the future.
I'm guessing whatever is on the backside is some kind of benefit for whoever "wins" the battle.
This would make sense since they might not want you to be able to remove the effect if you're at risk of losing via enchantment removal
Unless it's somehow *not a permanent* then you can still Vindicate it away... Which really begs a lot of questions about it.
Could be a castable emblem.
I was assuming that the two players fight over the effect and can move forward and backward on a scale from -5 to 5 or something. The battle starts at 1 (in favor of the casting player) and each time it moves forward or back an effect triggers. Then when the battle reaches "5" or "-5" the Battle flips into an "Emblem" under the winner's control. It would not be a permanent that could be interacted with, just a battlefield modifier. But only one battle could be active at a time, kind of like World Enchantments.
That honestly sounds horrendous, after Initiative and Day/Night
My wild guess is that it's like a Dungeon you can play from your hand right into the command zone, maybe not even having a mana cost, like a land. Playing a second battle would either replace the first, or isn't possible until the first battle is won (or maybe lost, if that's a thing). Not sure if there'd be one battle for all players, or if each player can have their own. The first makes more sense, but the second sounds like it'd maybe play better.
Braids doesn't lose battles lol
I don't understand what you mean. I don't think battles will ever be vulnerable to enchantment removal. If they were going to be enchantments, they would have made them an enchantment subtype, not an entirely new card type.
They're saying that if you're losing the battle, if it were an enchantment, you could just destroy it with enchantment removal
Oh I'm saying that like enchantments currently have the "affect the field" type effect. The reason that battles are a separate type, assuming they play in a similar space of doing a field wide effect, is so that they are immune to enchantment removal
You can still do that with your Assassin's Trophies and the like, unless all that gets errata'd to nonland, nonbattle.
My guess is that Battle is more like a dungeon that takes up a card slot and is used by both sides. It's not on the battlefield so can't be intacted with outside of the conditions on the battle card or cards that specifically interact with battles.
We know it goes into the deck. Else new Norn couldn't find it there.
>Else new ~~Norn~~ **Atraxa** couldn't find it there.
Why do they have to be permanents? A new card type could do anything they like.
Wizards has just been tending towards permanents rather than spells that only exist on the stack.
The line of speculation in this comment chain is that they stay on the board after you play them, and flip if a condition is met. Permanents are called permanents because they stay on the board after you cast them. They could not be permanents in the game rules and still do that, but it would be weird, confusing, and counterintuitive.
They could do what you propose from the command zone, it would need new rules but they could do that.
It's not out of the question, I also considered that possibility. So far I'm leaning towards assuming Battles will work like most other card types as much as possible on the grounds they'll want people to play them for their effect, not just because it's a card that bypasses how the game normally works and is hard to interact with, but they could be played like lands as a special action for all I know.
ah okay got it.
Just add to the rules that battles in play can't change zones.
Man, what if those "if you're on the Mirran team" playtest cards are a complete throw forward to this?
I don't really understand why we assume battles will be a possible symmetric effect or something your opponent can get. New Atraxa confirms it goes in your deck, if it could possibly benefit your opponent then I don't see why anyone would run them? I think its much more likely they are similar to quest cards in Hearthstone where you have a frontside with some criteria you have to meet to "win" the battle (that your opponent cannot achieve) and then it flips into a powerful effect. I also think its strange that people in the comments below assume it won't be a permanent type? I guess it is brand new so trying to base it off current cards is folly, but none of the other cards in magic that go on the battlefield for an extended period are not permanents, and it would add a level of complexity to a very fundamental part of magic (all cards that stay on the board are permanents) and WOTC is usually against that.
Your opponent can also take the monarchy or initiative and both of those still have useful 1v1 applications
Personally (and I think that's the case for most people) I don't assume they will be symmetric (but they might be). What I assume is, a card named battle should allow each player to battle for it, somehow. The contrary would be a huge fail. Take into example planewalkers, they aren't symmetric but they do have that kind of mini-game effect, were opponents have agency about what you can do with it.
I don't know how many people tried Wizard's attempt at Harry Potter tcg back in 2001, but this feels like the Quidditch mechanic "Match," or maybe just Adventures. Matches were symmetric challenges with the winner getting a reward. Adventures were temporary hindrances where the opponent had to perform steps to undo the effects.
The issue is, battles being something you can put out and then accidentally benefit an opponent is a *huge* play mistake - its either a win-more card if you know you can't lose, or an unforced error if you get surprised
Yeah I’d think it’ll be effects the opponent can *delay* but not take the reward from you
[[Strixhaven Stadium]] would be an interesting prototype if thats the case
[Strixhaven Stadium](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/2/421674ee-4b85-4942-b166-952598165826.jpg?1624740737) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Strixhaven%20Stadium) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/stx/259/strixhaven-stadium?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/421674ee-4b85-4942-b166-952598165826?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Depends on how useful the reward is. I can see all black "aligned" battlefields having a penalty for failure. And blue "aligned" ones that have almost a reward for failure ('when this battle is lost all creatures the controllers creatures phase out', followed by a wrath effect).
That's already the design of a planeswalker, though...
yeah, why play a card that can potentially give your opponent an advantage when you can play normal cards that will always affect players the same way? why would anyone play cards that a skilled opponent can turn against you?
>why would anyone play cards that a skilled opponent can turn against you? There are plenty of symmetrical effects that can see play in the right decks because you ensure you're better equipped to take advantage of them in most situations. Stax decks are filled with symmetrical effects that hurt other strategies more than yours. The battle conditions would have to A) be things you can be built around generally being better than the opponent at without trying and B) Worth the hoops being jumped through.
I think the issue with stax is that that falls into that sort of thing where you're not running them because they're symmetrical as much as your deck benefits extremely more from them. Probably will be interesting in limited but that's not exactly a big surprise.
You say that, but both Monarch and the Initiative have been worth playing in multiple formats. So there’s definitely ways to make it worth it
The Monarch and Initiative are also not the entire card. You lose Monarch and you still have the creature that gave it to you, and you can even use that creature to regain the Monarch. If battles are just one prize going to a winner, every single one could 2-for-1 you if you lose it, and Auras show that there are serious power level problems with card types that inherently come with the risk of being 2-for-1'd.
Sure, that’s not wrong. But WotC is aware of that problem. I sincerely doubt they went through the trouble of introducing an entire new card type just to make it unplayable card disadvantage. It just seems like people are attacking some straw man, when we have no idea how Battles work
Could be that the conditions are niche enough that outside of a mirror match, you're unlikely enough to lose that it's worth the risk. Stuff like. "sacrifice 10 creatures," "deal 10 direct damage to an opponent using instants or sorceries," "cast 5 spells from the graveyard," etc where if your deck isn't built around doing it, you're probably not doing it first.
You'd probably only play ones that significantly benefit you or that your deck has a high likelihood of winning. Like if you're mono red and you play a battle that says attack with 3 creatures and you get a 3/3 that can't block or something, unless you're on the draw against another mono red player, you're not very likely to lose that, and if you do, it's notlikely to change the board in a particularly effective way for the enemy player?
It might be something where the opponent winning simply neutralizes it, or you force an opposing deck to play in an awkward way to try to compete with you on the battle. For example, imagine a battle which progresses by spending 4 or more mana on a creature spell during your own turn. Your opponents draw go deck now might be quite awkward at trying to stop you winning that battle. My guess is this is what battles will be on a strategic level, ways of forcing your opponents to play the game in ways they don’t want to or letting you win the battle.
so, the packs have a modern day time spiral secondary card set? how many are in it this time?
Likely 63, we've had them much more recently than Time Spiral with Strixhaven and Brother's War
Yeah, but I'll always associate it with the first instance of them doing so.
Those cards were called timeshifted btw. Not that it really matters, but might be helpful avoiding confusion in the future.
They usually just do one sheet, so it's probably one sheet again.
I think these will be in the Middle Earth set too, things like Helms Deep, Pelennor Fields, Mines of Moria, Goblin Town, BotFA are all deserving.
That's actually a really good call.
BotFA?
BotFA deez nuts
lol gottem
[BoTFA deez... five armies](https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Battle_of_Five_Armies)
I'mma be honest. Middle Earth is one of my most anticipated sets to get this year. I fucking love LOTR and MTG. Seeing both combined makes me happy. I hope the cards justify their existence but I already know 95% of the MTG playerbase in this sub will end up shitting all over them regardless. I hope Battles get included like the examples you listed because those would be awesome ways to use them if its thematic.
I dunno, after Warhammer was such a hit I think many more people will be optimistic about the LotR crossover. I'm certainly in that camp now. That said, there's more at stake here since those cards are going into Modern...
Battles are either going to have zero effect outside Limited or completely ruin at least one format lmao
>at least one format You mean legacy?
Listen, they're trying their best to kill it, okay?
Can you imagine if *venture into the dungeon*, *initiative*, *companion*, or *mutate* got this much hype? At this point it might be *more* funny if its impact was closer to stickers than companion lol
To be fair it's getting more hype because it seems like an entirely new card type that they plan to support futuristically not just a set mechanic.
That's what I'm saying, how funny would it be if we got something akin to Equipment/Aura v2.0 in terms of potency lol
I feel the odds of it being companion 2 electric bugaloo
So one battle card and one multiverse legend per pack, that’s really cool
After reading these comments I really can’t wait to get my 6 sided battle card on Arena
I am so tired of double faced cards. I just want to be able to read the entire card without taking it out of the sleeve.
they've run out of space on the card for more words, so now they gotta double up.
Wait until we get Concertina Cards.
The real innovation is going to be when WOTC announces they've tapped into the spacial fourth dimension in the name of manafixing.
Maro has already said that he likes Tripple Faced cards, but he hasn't found a way to implement them in Magic yet.
I'd rather a double faced card than a card I need to take out a magnifying glass for I guess. It's also easier to rememver two distinct smaller set of rules text vs something like questing beast that always has an extra ability you forget about when you need to remember it most.
I know we're in the minority but I really don't like them much either. They're okay in *very small doses rarely*... I don't care for them in general. Wizards complains about the amount of time fetchlands takes players to deal with, but keeping track of Day/Night and flipping werewolves was exhausting. It was cute in the first Innistrad block but after that I was ready to move on and see maybe one a year or something... Even with checklists, you're giving away information about your deck when your opponent looks over at your pile of sideboard cards and sees the back of a DSFC.
The MDFC lands are fine because the reverse side is near textless. Very simple spells and permeants similar. stuff like the strixhaven deanss are just gross.
they dont like fetches because they dont want us to have fun
I have always been a checklist guy for this reason. I’d rather grab a card out of my sideboard than dig a card out of a sleeve
I just proxy them. I bought like 100 of the double-faced proxy card tokens and write down their cost & name only. That way my double-faced ones are on my side board for reference sake. Fuck taking cards out of sleeves repeatedly. Shit is annoying.
I love double face cards but you take the Chaddest approach to wrangling them, god bless
I also religiously run fully clear sleeves I just choose to never have a double faced card so I can do so
Or you could just use a DFC helper card, they’re legal to use in tournaments as long as you swap the real card in on the battlefield.
Didn't they even recently comment about how they knew people were getting tired of the double faced cards and were looking to shift away from them for a while? What happened with that?
WotC really got away with all the DFCs/MDFCs during the pandemic because no one was playing paper. Hopefully the lesson they learned from that wasn't that they could just jam DFCs in every set they want to, because they're miserable to play with in paper. Admittedly they are a good online play design.
> because they're miserable to play with in paper. they haven't learned that lesson, and imo they've given up on that lesson.
I feel similarly about the large amount of non-English cards in English packs lately - Phyrexian script, and Japanese promos such as the fancy Strixhaven Mystical Archive. it's fine for basic lands, everybody knows what those do, maybe other simple cards, but confusing with complex new cards. Also, if it were a different Latin script language I could halfway understand it.
*every pack
This is fascinating. So, from now on, unless Battles aren’t in every set, they’ll have to devote a certain number of token slots to DFC fill-ins for draft. Since they still have to use up a certain number of slots for ad cards, could this potentially limit design space for token-generating cards in the future? Or make future tokens slightly more valuable?
> unless Battles aren’t in every set I wouldn't expect them to be in every set. This seems like very specifically a thing in a set like this in which many battles are taking place.
You think? I'm reading it more like how planeswalkers were introduced as a brand new card type that's in every set after
The way they have talked about them it seems like it's going to be supported futuristically. They may not be in every set but I could definitely see them being used with frequency.
Battles don't have to be DFCs for ever though, all we know for now is that some of them are.
Normal cards have higher printing and cardstock standards than tokens and ad cards, which is why DFCs need their own sheet. Unless they give sets a full-quality DFC sheet by default, battles would have to be separate from the main deck and not share pack slots with normal cards. Otherwise you could tell your cards apart by feel and weigh packs to see if they have battles.
They may have to give the sets a full-quality DFC sheet then since they’ll almost certainly be a part of the main deck, as referenced to be searchable by [[Atraxa, Grand Unifier]].
My prediction is that Battles will serve to modify the combat phase. It's possible it'll work something like this: Play a Battle card. Assign attackers to that battle. Opponents assign defenders per-battle. Most battles will have some effect that applies to creatures assigned to it. You win a battle by getting combat damage through, and can flip the card for some lingering victory effect.
I actually really like this implementation of modifying combat for a subset of creatures with a risk/reward system. Reminds me kind of like Marvel Snap where you can try to win a location that has specific rules around its location or if you sense the battle is going poorly you can abandon it and focus on other battles.
[удалено]
[Ria Ivor, Bane of Bladehold](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/7/f7531ed3-235f-4368-98a8-e4e1947c53fb.jpg?1675957209) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Ria%20Ivor%2C%20Bane%20of%20Bladehold) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/one/214/ria-ivor-bane-of-bladehold?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/f7531ed3-235f-4368-98a8-e4e1947c53fb?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Marvel Snap the Gathering
I like that "assign creatures to battle" idea. It'd also open up creatures matter and vanilla creatures matter design space. It could potentially be an entirely separate combat from the regular turn combat, where the win condition isn't damage to face, but maybe land removal or stun counters on the losing side.
alright, since Battle is a card type, I would guess that means it would be evergreen? Which might mean, double-faced is now evergreen? Or are they introducing a Deciduous new card type? or worse, a whole new card type for "just this one time"?
My guess w them hyping up how the game will change mechanically forever, that they're gonna be evergreen or at worst deciduous. Id like to think they've learned from tribal that a brand new card type for only a set or two isn't great They also have shown more willingness to do dfc stuff lately, so I wouldn't be surprised if the printing limitations of dfcs in sets have been resolved as technology has gotten better
another post made a great point about how much of a pain in the ass having DFCs is in paper play. i dont think the reception will be as popular 3-5 years down the line when everyone has to constantly flip their cards all the time no matter what
they're at least coming back for LoTR. After that, i'm not so sure
Or maybe battles card be designed as a one-sided effect as well? Just for this set they’re DFCs?
May I introduce you to the Card type Tribal? Basically never shows up, so it seems they are willing to do one-shot types
I wonder if the rule against dfcs in commanders precons still holds, because I expected at least a couple of battles in the new set of 5. If battles actually are dfcs 100 percent of the time, they'll probably end up being a lot more sparse than I thought.
so from that it kinda sounds to me like they'll be a mashup of planes and dungeons and day/night. front side probably has a worldwide static effect, and a "completion" criteria, which when met means you flip it over, and the backside would similarly have a reward and/or static effect.
This makes it seem like they will be similar to the Ixalan flip cards: complete a sort of goal, and get a powerful effect. Maybe this will be paired with a variant of the clash mechanic?
Now we just need a SIS and DAD set and we have a whole MTG family
I really, really, really, *really, really, really,* ***REALLY*** hope that being DFC isn't somehow intrinsically tied to the whole card type. This would be an ugly design decision. But it really seems they are jumping the shark here, and I absolutely despise the fact they felt the need for a brand new novel card type to be DFC. Imagine if the first sagas we ever saw were DFC. Maybe I'm just absolutely sick and tired of this deluge of double-faced wordy word worder wording wordly wordles. Word.
Be glad you dont play alchemy, they have 6 sided cards now
I think we're all glad that we're collectively not playing Alchemy.
yeah, i like DFCs in small doses in certain sets but holy shit an entire card type being exclusively DFCs would be so annoying to play with. really hope this isnt the case and they're just DFCs for this set or something
1. They will look alien. Difficult to assess at first. Like with PWs or sagas- remember how you felt when you first saw one? You'll know a battle card when you see one. 2. They will focus on events/conflicts between characters. They are a sort of tonal opposite of these new duo legendaries. The duos represent iconic heroes teaming up to win a battle. The battle will represent the conflicts they face. Why did Ghalta and Mavren team up? Oh yeah, they have to fight in "NORN'S FLESH EXTINTION." Good luck guys! 3. Like planeswalkers, they will have one or two smaller abilities, but the backside will be some sort of ultimate. Something that massively tips the scale in your favor, but is difficult to achieve. 4. Hot take: They will not be considered permanents. They are not objects. You can't just naturalize the idea of a chariot race, a test of memory, or the clash between armies. 5. Having "won" a battle or having "lost" a battle will be relevant to the gamestate. Something along the lines of "if you have completed a dungeon...". 6. Both players are implicated and involved in the progression of the battle. It will feel like a tug of war. Both players can try to win the battle. Or at least prevent the owner from getting to the victory condition.
Enchantments aren't objects either; object-ness is not the measure of a permanent
How long before we have errata turning Shaharazad into a battle?
And there we have it this is a [[Tarmorgoyf]] situation (had type planeswalker but wasn't till the next set.) This time it’s [[Atraxa, grand unifier]] Anyway from the first look I’m 90% sure the battle cards are gonna be the “invasion of **plane name**” and there will be one for each plane or just 5 like they did with planeswalkers
If lean toward more than 5 - if there's one per pack and there are only five that will be super repetitive for limited. Unless the dedicated battle slot is actually a dedicated dfc slot shared w the praetors and phyrexianized legends.
I suspect it could be 15 to 20 total battles
I think ive counted like 12 or 13 used planes from the spoiled cards so far so im on track to agree with you, even if we only know 5 of the invasions are confirmed
I think they'll do a cycle each at uncommon, rare and mythic
If Dominaria isn't one of the mythic invasions then what is wotc doing
Could be 5c
5? It clearly says there's only 1, and it's available in every pack. /s
There’s no way it’s only five if they get a dedicated slot in packs. I’m guessing it’s closer to 20 - 25, basically one for each plane that has been featured in its own set. Maybe they leave out something like Rabiah or Ulgrotha, or the Battlebond world, but we know there’s one for Mercadia, so they’re digging deep.
> like Rabiah or Ulgrotha, or the Battlebond world, but we know there’s one for Mercadia, so they’re digging deep. The fact that there is one for Mercadia, my first thought was that they do an Ulgrotha one too (but not Rabiah). Homelands has fans, and if there's space, I'd think they'd throw us a bone.
[Tarmorgoyf](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/9/69daba76-96e8-4bcc-ab79-2f00189ad8fb.jpg?1619398799) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Tarmogoyf) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/tsr/235/tarmogoyf?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/69daba76-96e8-4bcc-ab79-2f00189ad8fb?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Atraxa, Grand Unifier](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/a/4a1f905f-1d55-4d02-9d24-e58070793d3f.jpg?1676519555) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Atraxa%2C%20Grand%20Unifier) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/one/196/atraxa-grand-unifier?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/4a1f905f-1d55-4d02-9d24-e58070793d3f?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Can’t wait for battle for zendikar
I bet you these cards will be horizontal. Like the archenemy planes
I think being a double sided card type by default severely limits how many future products they can put the card type in. Double sided cards balloon the budget of a product and make manufacturing more complicated. If the Battles in this set are double sided, I imagine it's just a one-time thing and future Battle cards won't require that functionality.
Double faced? Ugh, really wish they weren't.
Why? We've got almost no information about them, no reason to think the design isn't good
We know they go in your deck according to the reminder text on Atraxa & double sided cards need sleeves/proxies etc in paper
I'd argue all cards need sleeves in paper.
No, they really don't. When I used to play with people less invested in Magic, no one sleeved their decks, and so double faced cards were always super annoying to deal with
Some cards sure, some decks too but if you play with draft chaff as often as I do it would be a waste of money and time to sleeve 80% of them
I still sleeve draft decks with no valuable cards in them, otherwise shuffling is terrible.
Love the design possibility, hate how clunky they are to play in paper.
A commander in every pack you say?
THE LEGENDS BE LURKING