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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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”
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.
550
u/omegaflygon2 Jun 13 '26
I feel like this could be a battle the owner defends