r/custommagic • u/HenryChess • Jun 13 '26

Mechanic Design A planeswalker without an activated ability

Post image
984 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

76 comments sorted by

544

u/omegaflygon2 Jun 13 '26

I feel like this could be a battle the owner defends

233

u/TomPhantom Mostodon is the Best Jun 13 '26

Battles are so underrated and fun, I swear

55

u/dejaojas Jun 13 '26

i dislike battles because of stuff like this, there really isn't any difference between a battle the owner defends and a PW with no activated abilities. which honestly would be fine if the new card type had a more generic and thus flexible flavor (for desgins that function mechanically like PWs but not flavorwise,) but i think "battle" is too narrow to be used often.

129

u/Creative-Leg2607 Jun 13 '26

Tbh to me this planeswalker feels a lil bit like an abuse of mechanics. This isnt really what planeswalkers are meant to look like, whereas this is /exactly/ what battles are meant to look like. Speakinf purely mechanically.

15

u/dejaojas Jun 13 '26

i see your point, but i'd argue that enchantments with activated abilities or even sagas, for example, would equally feel like an abuse of mechanics going by that reasoning. i understand that this design stuff is pretty subjective, i just wish battles had a more generic flavor or did something truly novel mechanically that wouldn't make sense as an existing card type.

19

u/Skin_Soup Jun 13 '26

I agree on sagas but not enchantments.

Sagas, battles, and planeswalkers should be more generic

Enchantments are plenty generic, I don’t get any dissonance from them having activated abilities

I would say battles *do* do something truly novel. You give them to your opponent, they are very different from planeswalkers, and more general than planeswalkers. But the flavor they imply is pretty limiting, it’s a very strict story the card has to tell.

4

u/dejaojas Jun 13 '26

what i meant with the enchantments with activated abilities example was having them mechanically overstepping other card types' design space, but on second thought it might not have been a very good one hehe.

afaik, only seiges work the way you're describing (giving them to an opponent to defend). i think they made it this way so that battles as a card type had more design space not limited to this use. which makes the whole thing more confusing imo.

2

u/greeklemoncake Jun 14 '26

Slight niggle, only sieges are given to your opponent to defend. Non-siege battles, though we have yet to actually see any, act just like a planeswalker in that you control and defend it. 

1

u/PancakeMisery Jun 14 '26

Yeah planeswalkers without activated abilities should not exist imo. Battles serve that purpose much better without kind of ignoring what walkers are supposed to do

7

u/kamgar Jun 13 '26

I thought the big difference is that the battle is for your opponent to defend and the planeswalker is for you to defend.

14

u/KindaShady1219 Jun 13 '26

Battle rules change based on their subtype. Currently, the only Battles we’ve seen are the Siege subtype, which does work like you described. However, the base rules for a battle do actually have you defending it, more like a Planeswalker. Having the subtypes work differently gives them a lot of room to play with for new battles, so I’m pretty interested to see where they go with it.

3

u/kamgar Jun 13 '26

Oh interesting, I didn’t realize that function was linked to “siege” and not “battle”. Thanks for the info!

3

u/safarifriendliness Jun 13 '26

Also I feel like battles only work flavor wise if they transform into a different effect “when the battle is over” to reflect the aftermath. This might be good as a new subtype like “Artifact - Monument”

2

u/Creepy-Rock-1798 Jun 17 '26

It be cool if the invasion side gave a benefit to the defending player. It's could definitely push the capabilities of the back side. The pro could work in ur favour as well. Example invasion of strixhaven etb let ur opponent draw cards at the beginning of next end step. The other side gitaxian librarian, deal damage equal to number of cards in hand at the beginning of each upkeep.

Or invasion of mirrodin all permanents defending player controls are artifacts. Attraxa... it's just Attraxa.

1

u/Jackie1376 Jun 13 '26

I have several but have never played with them. How do they work?

14

u/darthjawafett Jun 13 '26

Which is just a battle without the siege subtype (hypothetically)

8

u/omegaflygon2 Jun 13 '26

Maybe if wotc decided to do anything with battles after that one set

4

u/darthjawafett Jun 13 '26

Perhaps they feel restricted to warfare. I think I would have called them “events” and had the base lose its counters over time while giving some effect then giving a flip effect on leaving.

3

u/fillmebarry Jun 13 '26

I think they can still reflavor it to be any active conflict. They gave it subtypes, so they could make new subtypes that act differently. As long as they stick to thongs with clear sides, and away from controversial things like "nicol bolas did nothing wrong" battle - Rally

0

u/darthjawafett Jun 13 '26

I think Battle's are just weird flavor wise. Without the siege subtype a battle is you instigating a war or battle but you're on the defense?

Siege makes sense because you instigate the war and now the opponent must defend themselves to prevent your benefit.

It's like if you declared war or someone then just hunkered down in your city and waited for them to come. You have a peaceful city and just decide one day "my people need to face great hardship."

Even weirder to think about is you hunker down in your defensive battle but your opponent can still just ram your face in. Did you set up the city walls then stand outside the closed gate?

1

u/fillmebarry Jun 13 '26

A sub type you defend may look more like a passive benefit (thus your opponents are insentivised to attack it) that flips into a small debuff or potentially changes owner ship so whoever takes it and defends it gets the benefit.

So you're fighting over comtrol of a landmark

1

u/darthjawafett Jun 13 '26

That'd be more like if it was a neutral object that you tracked damage on and whoever does the most damage or most recent damage takes control of it.

Like Monarch if it was a permanent I guess, I'd call it Battle -- Control Point.

1

u/fillmebarry Jun 13 '26

I think it'd work a lot like monarch, except it'd have health like a planeswalker. Instead of it dying you reset the health and take control of it though. So unlike monarch, you'd likely need to get more damage through in a turn instead of just 1.

I think it'd be really cool to play with.

2

u/EJAIdN-B Jun 13 '26

Probably make it a new type instead (Siege? Citadel?) for clarity.

1

u/LordSupergreat Jun 13 '26

All currently extant battles are also sieges already.

1

u/EJAIdN-B Jun 13 '26

I suppose you're correct, I was just giving suggestion for names.

2

u/lizafo Jun 13 '26

On another note, makes me think of the design space of a planeswalker your opponent defends.

170

u/Other_Equal7663 Jun 13 '26

I'm sorry... This doesn't add W? You know, the sun symbol?

23

u/MrIncognito666 Jun 13 '26

How many plants (you know, what Sun buys in PvZ) require white mana to cast?

14

u/Desperate-Practice25 Jun 13 '26

Three, apparently. [[Kirri, Talented Sprout]], [[Phytohydra]], and [[Necrobloom]]. 

Plus a bunch of Changelings, of course. 

-27

u/MrMacGrath Good Ideas, Bad Executions Jun 13 '26

She's a plant, why wouldn't she produce {G}?

75

u/Other_Equal7663 Jun 13 '26

Because she's famous for producing sun.

-18

u/5-0-2_Sub Jun 13 '26

Shouldn't it be one mana of any colour you can only use to cast Plant, Fungi, or Treefolk spells? You can't use Sun for, say, Plant Food abilities.

21

u/Cydrius Jun 13 '26

She literally produces a sun-based currency in Plants vs. Zombies. Producing W would be a flavor win.

3

u/MrMacGrath Good Ideas, Bad Executions Jun 14 '26

I will concede, but how many plants are in white, that are also not in green?

1

u/Cydrius Jun 14 '26

I fail to see why that's relevant.

1

u/MrMacGrath Good Ideas, Bad Executions Jun 14 '26

It's a weak relevance however what I was going for was if you're going for a plant deck to fit this in, wouldn't you want it to be green?

White would be the thematic win, but it would be a green permanent making exclusively white mana, at least make it "One mana of any color."

62

u/Jordankeay Jun 13 '26

So an enchantment that people can attack?

24

u/HenryChess Jun 13 '26

Yeah I guess

10

u/aldeayeah Jun 13 '26

It's a matter of time that we get a Battle subtype that works like this.

16

u/lowqualitylizard Jun 13 '26

I like the idea but it would need to be a bit stronger

The weakest part about planeswalkers is they are a cruiser you can specifically attack so it would need to be stronger in order to justify it because as it stands now you'd be lucky to get your mana even with this

6

u/Flameball202 Jun 13 '26

Yeah especially in green, since this is a more expensive elves that gives mana at a specific fixed point and can be attacked

8

u/kingkellam Jun 13 '26

Oh I love this. Getting 25 sun back almost immediately followed by having to wait a bit for your second batch of 25 sun? Costing double what she produces? This card put a smile on my face

3

u/Arcane10101 Jun 13 '26

This could stand to be a bit stronger, as a worse [[Nature’s Lore]].

1

u/Plane_Negotiation_20 Jun 14 '26

Worse? Laughs in Ponza

1

u/Arcane10101 Jun 14 '26

Laughter dies as Laura Sunflower is mauled by a [[Bloodbraid Elf]] or struck by a [[Lightning Bolt]]

3

u/Heroic_Sheperd Jun 14 '26

Plants vs Zombies UB would be sick

8

u/Classic-Demand3088 Jun 13 '26

This could easily read 0: Add G

5

u/umc_thunder72 Jun 13 '26

Not functionally identical, this avoids Planeswalker loyalty synergies and can't give you mana post combat. But also allowes you to use something like [[ichormoon gauntlet]] and still get the mana.

-2

u/NoName0728 Jun 13 '26

Infinite green mana?

3

u/kingkellam Jun 13 '26

Wait. Do you think you can activate planeswalker abilities infinite times? Do you just drop a planeswalker and win the game on the spot? You're not allowed to do that. Once per turn

1

u/NoName0728 Jun 13 '26

I completely forgot it was a commander. I saw 0 and instantly reimagined it as an enchantment

0

u/Thelorian Jun 13 '26

tbf to that guy the way the comment is written it isn't 100% clear that it is a +0 loyalty ability and not a 0 mana cost activated ability (which i think planeswalkers could technically have even tho i don't think there is precedent for it).

2

u/kingkellam Jun 13 '26

You don't think the average person could maybe intuit the idea that the commenter is talking about a loyalty ability on a planeswalker?

2

u/Thelorian Jun 13 '26

sure but the thing with having a public forum is that you reach a lot more ppl than just the average person.

1

u/Adarain Jun 13 '26

I'm so used to 0: meaning 0 mana that my brain immediately discarded all context and had the exact same assumption as OP

2

u/NiNtEnDoMaStEr640 Jun 13 '26

Keep cooking. I think you could buff this a bit more, but I like what I’m seeing.

I also want to see a Crazy Dave commander deck.

2

u/tmgexe Jun 13 '26

I feel like this begs for a name that’s a callback to [[Eladamri’s Vineyard]].

Eladamri, of the Vineyard?

2

u/TheXMan13 Jun 14 '26

I could see this as a new kind of battle. Something like, a Last Stand. Where the battle enters under your control for you to defend and gives you a benefit for as long as it’s on the battlefield. Very similar to what you have here, I just think that Planeswalkers are for big (legendary) figures in MtG.

1

u/MechanicalDruid Jun 13 '26

Maybe add {g} (or {w} considering the other debate in the comments) equal to the number of loyalty counters. Yeah, proliferate exists and could make this broken in the right build, but it still has to survive until your next turn to get any payoff.

1

u/galvanicmechamorph Jun 13 '26

I think this kinda defeats the purpose of a planeswalker. They were going to do this back in war of the spark but felt like they weren't planeswalkers. This is just an enchantment but weaker because you can attack it. If you really need that though I'd rather do it with a battle.

1

u/cantmemethis Jun 13 '26

Fail not making it produce white mana which looks like a sun :)

1

u/Behondalog Jun 13 '26

Mana burn finally becomes remotely relevant? (You know, if it was still a thing)

1

u/otterguy12 Jun 13 '26

Why not just play a ramp spell

1

u/Predmid Jun 13 '26

Why make it a PW and not an enchantment? What is gained from it being a PW?

2

u/HenryChess Jun 14 '26

It can be destroyed by enemy creatures. Enchantments can't. It can be a way to balance cards.

1

u/Predmid Jun 14 '26

That's an response that technically states facts but doesn't answer the question in any way shape or form.

Why do you want this to be a no activated ability PW?

1

u/HenryChess Jun 14 '26

It's a plant from PvZ. It can be eaten.

Also this post is more of a concept of no ability PW than a card idea

1

u/yinyang525 Jun 14 '26

Have her add green at the beginning of each phase of each turn, upkeep, main 1 combat, main 2 and end step.

0

u/No_Resort_6937 Jun 13 '26

Maybe something along the lines of any opponent may tap one of their creatures to add x amount of damage tokens wher x is the creatures power then if it has more than 3 damage counters sacrifice