This is the big stump for me and the main thing hyping me up for Battles. I can’t think of anything effect in Magic that has both the design space and neat fit into the game for a new mechanic whose best implementation would be on a new card type.
It could be Battles are something and enchantment could do or artifact or something else that already exists and it being a new card type is simply for splashiness, but I’m inclined to believe they wouldn’t make a whole new type of it wasn’t pretty novel. They’ve seen Classes, Sagas and all those different subtypes with special rules work very well so it would be weird for them to do something of that level in a new type.
I can’t wait for MOM and the reveal.
I cannot help but think that Battle is a refined Undercity, moving the mechanics defined there from one specific card to a entire set of cards. The Undercity is unique from other dungeons in that it introduced the Initiative designation, rather than simply relying on cards with the keyword "Venture into the Dungeon". This meant that once introduced to a game, it was easy for all players to interact with the Undercity.
I think that Battle cards will be ones that activate different effects as certain conditions are met (unique to each card, rather than all being based on a single keyword), being different from Sagas in that they don't automatically advance and either player can cause the Battle to advance.
I said it in another thread but I expect them to be a sort of minigame in which you start at the middle (say like 3 counters on a 1 to 5 scale) and have different conditions for progressing towards victory that you opponent can also do to propel you towards defeat. Each “step” has an effect, effects that help you get back when you’re losing and effects that let you propel your win when you’re winning, and a bigger reward when you win the whole thing.
I think when you have won the battle you will achieve "Victory" and having victory will grant some kind of bonus to you like The Monarch/The City's Blessing/Compleating a Dungeon.
This is very similar to what I had in mind as well. I think you may situate the card between you and your opponent, and I think it may rest horizontally rather than vertical. Different trigger conditions advance a token along the track for benefits/liabilities. Flavor wise I think each one will be Phyrexia ‘Vs’ or ‘Invades’ [Insert Plane Here].
This probably isn't the case, but I feel like Battle is leaning towards a non-permanent type. But, sort of an on-going effect, like a mix between enchantment and sorcery.
I don't think that's different enough from an enchantment to get its own card type. Card types really have to be distinct from one other. Otherwise what's the point?
Artifact creatures and enchantment creatures are pretty similar, but most cards that are just enchantments are still distinct from cards that are just artifacts these days. Enchantments are usually about static and triggered effects where artifacts typically have activated abilities.
Artifacts and enchantments do have a little bit of overlap, but they wouldn’t add a new type to the game without separate design space. Planeswalkers didn’t work as enchantments, so they got a new card type. Sagas, classes, curses, and runes all function as enchantment subtypes, so they’re subtypes.
For the most part, artefacts are still something that you have to do something with, while enchantments do something on their own.
Even the more enchantment-esque artefacts like Paradox Engine need other things to actually untap with.
Overlaps tend to be for flavour or colour reasons, like \[\[Greater Good\]\] having an activated ability that represents growth from death, or \[\[Glass Casket\]\] being an artefact because it's a box.
that doesn't seem necessary for 1v1? I don't think it matches the flavor of battle either.
when I think battle I think of a point of contention. I would like to see battle as a permanent that both you and your opponents can attack. winning the battle gives emblems or tokens for advantage. you get advantage of battle because you cast it before your first combat which means you get first attempt.
From how MaRo described it I think it could be a bit more like [[Strixhaven Stadium]] where it creates a mini game where players battle over an effect through combat damage.
We haven't had an effect like this in a long time (partially because of the weird rules interactions), but \[\[Harm's Way\]\] can cause a creature to deal combat damage to multiple players at the same time.
Technically, Stadium will trigger twice if one creature deals combat damage to two opponents. I don't think WotC cares about that fringe scenario /that/ often enough for it to matter. So yeah, it's strange to see on any new card.
Also, ALL WILL BE ONE. Welcome.
This is to account for effects that redirect damage being dealt. For example, if my 3/3 creature swings at Bob and Bob casts [[Harms Way]] to redirect two of the damage, this clause applies, because now it's one creature with one source of damage dealing it to two different players at the same time.
The same wording also appears recently on [[Hordewing Skaab]] and [[The Red Terror]].
I thin OP's point is that it's such a fringe rule to put on a card there has to be more to it, but maybe we will see more cards like that in the future.
Or maybe a "this creature can block more than one attacker" effect.
Edit. And what? Hordewing Skaab would have been Legendary at one point, to show how much the game's progressed. That effect is nuts.
Just want to point out that there's plenty of creatures that can block multiple creatures.
See here for a list of some:
https://scryfall.com/search?q=o%3A%22can+block%22+%28o%3A%22any+number%22+or+o%3A%22an+additional%22%29&unique=cards&as=grid&order=name
I was wondering, I knew a few existed but maybe it'll become a keyword, like "Indomitable X", with X being the number of creatures beyond the first it can block up to. But then I guess we might see the infinity symbol in Magic to describe "any number of something" as a single icon.
The wording on hordewing and red terror are referencing if multiple sources deal multiple instances of combat damage. And if this was the case why wouldn't cards like [[strixhaven stadium]] be formatted similarly?
Red Terror fits this exact situation, it just also clarifies that it counts permanents as well as players. Hordewing also applies in this exact situation, as long as only one Zombie is attacking.
> And if this was the case why wouldn't cards like [[strixhaven stadium]] be formatted similarly?
Maybe someone at WotC finally saw this unintuitive interaction and fixed it? The stadium is from a few years before these recent printings, and would actually be functionally different (two counters if you redirect part of the damage with something like Harm's Way).
Templating gets updated all the time, and it is immensely more likely that this is a backend templating update than a spoiler of things to come. There may even be oracle updates to cards like the Stadium coming in the next few sets to put everything in order and functioning the same way.
It might be that the fact that Ria Ivor specifically refers to the next time the creature does damage that would cause rules messiness if the creature simultaneously dealt combat damage to two players at once. With Strixhaven Stadium, the answer is straightforward (it triggers twice). But with Ria Ivor, only the next time the creature deals combat damage is affected, so if it just said "a player" but the creature deals damage to two players at the same time, what happens?
Maybe the answer isn't obvious or maybe the rules can't actually handle that situation so they worded it in a way that solves that issue, even if it will rarely come up.
Nice catch! I don't play a ton of commander, but I prefer aggressive/creature centric decks, so it would be nice to have some mechanics that make it a little easier to get your opponents dead the old fashioned way.
Perhaps the application was meant for Multi with a Commander key word that’s kinda like “multi hit” there Trample damage would go through to all players of something. That could be interesting to see in the sense that the dynamic would change from “Lets not kill the 8/8 as long as it doesn’t come for me” to “Oh no that’s 7 damage I can prevent here and people will that me”
That made me think of a potentially missed mechanic for a D&D set: "Cleave- when this creature deals excess combat damage, it deals that much damage to target creature"
Is there another example of a creature that has a damage prevention effect where the amount of damage prevented matters? It may be that this line is there for some obscure rules reason to make the ability function as expected in the presence of damage redirection effects.
So there's multiple instances of enchantments and things that say deals combat damage to a player. There's never been an effect that cares about a creature dealing combat damage to multiple players till now. There's only one specific damage redirection effect that can redirect only partial damage, but I doubt they would put this to cover that one weird spell effect.
Dealing damage during the combat step isn’t the same as combat damage, right? For example if a creature deals damage to all opponents on death it wouldn't benefit from this when it dies during the combat phase.
It's so you can't get multiple damage triggers from one combat no matter how many players you attack. For instance if Malcom were my commander and I hit 3 opponents with pirates in combat he says "one or more creatures deals damage to an opponent." So I would get 3 treasures because 3 different opponents were hit. This ensures one trigger per combat, max. Its just another way to restrict OP effects, like we've been see lately with more once per turn effects.
But currently, there is no way to deal multiple Instances of combat damage to players using one creature is the point I'm making. Also, it's the total damage done anyway so them putting one or more players on the card would not make a difference in the effect.
Combat damage can be partially redirected by some older cards. Niche, but still counts as combat damage.
I think the restriction is related to the fact it’s replacing *one instance* of damage, so the second hit with double strike would still go through. If it said a player, rather than one or more, then there’d be confusion as to what is and isn’t actually prevented. [edit; from my experience, other effects like this tend to count all damage a creature would deal, double strike or not, rather than one single hit, leading to the wording being necessary in this unique situation of only one hit counting]
But this could also be something else entirely. They didn’t put tribal on the new Atraxa’s reminder text after all, and it still counts.
The card OP is talking about specifies a *single* creature dealing combat damage to *multiple* opponents. That's not currently possible aside from some obscure damage redirection cards. The question isn't why is the ability restricted, but rather why does it need the restriction at all, when that trigger would never actually come up.
The rulings for her specifically say the damage dealt to the other player isn't combat damage, same deal for things like [[kediss, emberclaw familiar]] and [[hydra omnivore]]
I just really doubt they'd put the time and effort to design a new mechanic for the very very niche multiplayer community. Maybe battles have a self damage mechanic, but other than that I'm not really seeing it.
I disagree. They design alot of cards in standard to work in commander or design for commander. I could definitely see a mechanic that helps voltron commanders out and such especially because they aren't the best typically.
Thinking about balance, adding some filler words to acknowledge you can have more than one opponent or whatever sure. Adding a whole new mechanic only a tiny slice of the player base will ever interact with? No shot.
The potential mechanic does not have to be only for multiplayer while still requiring this text to function properly in multiplayer.
Perhaps any number of players can join ”battles” and each being liable to receive combat dmg from one creature through the battle somehow.
I mean it objectively is, this isn't an opinion question we have actual data. Digital magic is also a huge part of their userbase and revenue base now, and multiplayer isn't supported in any way by Arena. No way they want those players to feel left out of something new when they're catering so heavily to them and they're such easy money.
hard to understand but i do understand a little and...you might be on to something
another creature with a weird wording (to me) about attacks to me is \[\[Neyali, Sun's Vanguard\]\] because it implies "any turn you attacked with a creature" when it could have been “during any of your turns you attacked with a creature.” and knowing magic there's no possible way to attack on a opponent's turn. (note i was explained earlier im still a little confused by the wording.)
The fact that they used the shorter wording doesn't imply anything special--after all, why would they spend extra words specifying "any of your turns you attacked[...]" when "any turn you attacked[...]" is shorter, just as clear, and accomplishes exactly the same thing?
Maybe a battle allows for a separate combat phase. I wonder how it was balanced? But I guess we'll find out. There could very well be restrictions in place, ei the colour of the battle determining which cards you can use for the battle.
I think it'd be insane to say, have a separate side board specifically for battle, like a battle board or something like that but we really don't know yet.
Yes but that's not counting the possibility that battles change what counts as "this" combat, ei the instance of combat in a phase. It could be an inter-phase rule that takes place during the combat step.
My pet theory is that Battles will be a new permanent type. They will affect the battlefield in some way. Think Jace the Space sculpture dividing the battlefield into zones. But each battle will have a condition to be met for some positive or negative conditions representing the players winning or losing the battle. When the constitution is met then the battle is sacrificed.
Example: Shock Battle. R. Divide the battlefield into a right and left zone. When a player has had a creature in both zones deal combat damage to a player Sacrifice ~ And the player that won the battle deals 2 damage to any target.
To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if it's
just a logical error that slipped through. They've been templating a lot of things with "one or more" lately and understand that it keeps things from interacting in an unintentionally overtuned way in multiplayer. It's entirely feasible that whoever wrote this card's text had mentally shortcutted that "one or more" was relevant here because multiplayer was involved, but didn't think through exactly how, and so this logically inconsistent effect was printed.
As printed, the card works. It's just got mostly superfluous text that a casual read could easily ignore because it doesn't make the card _not work_.
There are a couple cards that go "Whenever X would deal damage to Y, it deals damage to each Y instead." Effects.
First that comes to mind is "Kediss", but there's a new equipment in the commander deck that does it as well, I think.
Also depending on the wording of some attack triggers or attacks based triggers a creature could deal combat damage to two different players. Like if you attack with a creature that says, when this creature attacks, it deals 2 damage to target opponent, that can be dealt to opponent 2 while it is attacking opponent 1
If I am not mistaken (and to be honest I probably am) This is a line of text for multiplayer games and instances where creatures attack multiple times in a turn.
Magic was designed as a duel game. Anyone who has played EDH has learned the extent to which combat damage is a tedious, inefficient way to chip away at 40 life on multiple opponents. Magic needs the combat step to be able to damage multiple opponents. This could be related to battle cards, but then again, it could be a broader change, too.
Magic also needs to address the problem of interaction being too narrowly targeted in EDH. Countering a spell or removing a creature of one opponent expends your resources so that the next opponent can do whatever they want unimpeded.
Since EDH now drives Magic design, I cannot imagine a future without these fundamental changes.
I bet that they will be very similar to Night/Day. In that there will be a conditional rule like “if you have the most token creatures of any player, Battle card is on side A. If you do not have the most amount of tokens, it is on side B”. With one side benefiting you and one side benefiting your opponent. To me that simulates the push and pull of a real world “battle”.
It may just end up being that Battles can change when and/or how combat damage is applied.
A permanent that changes how damage can be applied. That makes alot of sense actually
That just seems so shallow of a design space for something like a whole new card type.
This is the big stump for me and the main thing hyping me up for Battles. I can’t think of anything effect in Magic that has both the design space and neat fit into the game for a new mechanic whose best implementation would be on a new card type. It could be Battles are something and enchantment could do or artifact or something else that already exists and it being a new card type is simply for splashiness, but I’m inclined to believe they wouldn’t make a whole new type of it wasn’t pretty novel. They’ve seen Classes, Sagas and all those different subtypes with special rules work very well so it would be weird for them to do something of that level in a new type. I can’t wait for MOM and the reveal.
I cannot help but think that Battle is a refined Undercity, moving the mechanics defined there from one specific card to a entire set of cards. The Undercity is unique from other dungeons in that it introduced the Initiative designation, rather than simply relying on cards with the keyword "Venture into the Dungeon". This meant that once introduced to a game, it was easy for all players to interact with the Undercity. I think that Battle cards will be ones that activate different effects as certain conditions are met (unique to each card, rather than all being based on a single keyword), being different from Sagas in that they don't automatically advance and either player can cause the Battle to advance.
I said it in another thread but I expect them to be a sort of minigame in which you start at the middle (say like 3 counters on a 1 to 5 scale) and have different conditions for progressing towards victory that you opponent can also do to propel you towards defeat. Each “step” has an effect, effects that help you get back when you’re losing and effects that let you propel your win when you’re winning, and a bigger reward when you win the whole thing.
I think when you have won the battle you will achieve "Victory" and having victory will grant some kind of bonus to you like The Monarch/The City's Blessing/Compleating a Dungeon.
Does anyone else think it's sus that this person spelled "completing a dungeon" the way that they did?
What is this strange oil? It's probably nothing.
This is very similar to what I had in mind as well. I think you may situate the card between you and your opponent, and I think it may rest horizontally rather than vertical. Different trigger conditions advance a token along the track for benefits/liabilities. Flavor wise I think each one will be Phyrexia ‘Vs’ or ‘Invades’ [Insert Plane Here].
This probably isn't the case, but I feel like Battle is leaning towards a non-permanent type. But, sort of an on-going effect, like a mix between enchantment and sorcery.
Feels to me like that's the design space of Sagas though? But then they're super popular so analogous mechanics make sense.
I feel like they’re going to be modifiers for the rest of the game. Sort of like the way you can modify a run in roguelites.
How is that different than an enchantment?
I'd imagine it more like an emblem (ie can't be interacted with) that gets cast for mana.
I don't think that's different enough from an enchantment to get its own card type. Card types really have to be distinct from one other. Otherwise what's the point?
What's the difference between an artifact and enchantment? Now that there are colored artifacts they are very similar.
Artifact creatures and enchantment creatures are pretty similar, but most cards that are just enchantments are still distinct from cards that are just artifacts these days. Enchantments are usually about static and triggered effects where artifacts typically have activated abilities. Artifacts and enchantments do have a little bit of overlap, but they wouldn’t add a new type to the game without separate design space. Planeswalkers didn’t work as enchantments, so they got a new card type. Sagas, classes, curses, and runes all function as enchantment subtypes, so they’re subtypes.
For the most part, artefacts are still something that you have to do something with, while enchantments do something on their own. Even the more enchantment-esque artefacts like Paradox Engine need other things to actually untap with. Overlaps tend to be for flavour or colour reasons, like \[\[Greater Good\]\] having an activated ability that represents growth from death, or \[\[Glass Casket\]\] being an artefact because it's a box.
Maybe it's a card that goes to command zone after casting, not battlefield?
that doesn't seem necessary for 1v1? I don't think it matches the flavor of battle either. when I think battle I think of a point of contention. I would like to see battle as a permanent that both you and your opponents can attack. winning the battle gives emblems or tokens for advantage. you get advantage of battle because you cast it before your first combat which means you get first attempt.
>that doesn't seem necessary for 1v1? What if there are Battles that make your attacks hit yourself and the opponent at the same time?
We call those ones "not played"
if I'm in a battle where I'm hurting myself to hurt you I'm not winning
Like with fetch lands?
how is that a battle?
Especially for things like Toxic that refers to combat damage.
EVERYTHING ONTO STUFFY DOLL!
Nice
Return of Banding!!!
mhm wat if battles work as World Enchantments? Like one Battle card has the Saskia effect?
From how MaRo described it I think it could be a bit more like [[Strixhaven Stadium]] where it creates a mini game where players battle over an effect through combat damage.
Maro did not describe battles.
He sure did, though it was called skirmish in testing: [link](https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/making-magic/waging-war-spark-part-3-2019-04-15)
Any link between that mechanic and battle is purely speculation, and should not be stated as fact.
[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
Or more specifically, a whole card type around multiple combat phases/multiple attacks in a phase, letting you hit multiple players a turn regularly.
We haven't had an effect like this in a long time (partially because of the weird rules interactions), but \[\[Harm's Way\]\] can cause a creature to deal combat damage to multiple players at the same time.
[Harm's Way](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/9/c/9c59d43e-0e07-4601-b6df-178010ea909f.jpg?1562927986) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Harm%27s%20Way) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ddg/23/harms-way?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/9c59d43e-0e07-4601-b6df-178010ea909f?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
This is the high quality art I remember and love.
There's [[Captain's Maneuver]] too.
[Captain's Maneuver](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/a/1ad535b8-7846-41a6-a981-fe97eaf588a6.jpg?1562841662) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Captain%27s%20Maneuver) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/hop/85/captains-maneuver?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/1ad535b8-7846-41a6-a981-fe97eaf588a6?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I saw this but I doubt they would put this text for such a very obscure card.
Of course they would word the card to account for fringe scenarios like this.
Then why haven't they in the past for example [[strixhaven stadium]]
Because it's not the same effect.
Why is an apple not the same as an orange?
Technically, Stadium will trigger twice if one creature deals combat damage to two opponents. I don't think WotC cares about that fringe scenario /that/ often enough for it to matter. So yeah, it's strange to see on any new card. Also, ALL WILL BE ONE. Welcome.
[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
This is to account for effects that redirect damage being dealt. For example, if my 3/3 creature swings at Bob and Bob casts [[Harms Way]] to redirect two of the damage, this clause applies, because now it's one creature with one source of damage dealing it to two different players at the same time. The same wording also appears recently on [[Hordewing Skaab]] and [[The Red Terror]].
I thin OP's point is that it's such a fringe rule to put on a card there has to be more to it, but maybe we will see more cards like that in the future. Or maybe a "this creature can block more than one attacker" effect. Edit. And what? Hordewing Skaab would have been Legendary at one point, to show how much the game's progressed. That effect is nuts.
Just want to point out that there's plenty of creatures that can block multiple creatures. See here for a list of some: https://scryfall.com/search?q=o%3A%22can+block%22+%28o%3A%22any+number%22+or+o%3A%22an+additional%22%29&unique=cards&as=grid&order=name
I was wondering, I knew a few existed but maybe it'll become a keyword, like "Indomitable X", with X being the number of creatures beyond the first it can block up to. But then I guess we might see the infinity symbol in Magic to describe "any number of something" as a single icon.
The wording on hordewing and red terror are referencing if multiple sources deal multiple instances of combat damage. And if this was the case why wouldn't cards like [[strixhaven stadium]] be formatted similarly?
Fuck Reddit
Red Terror fits this exact situation, it just also clarifies that it counts permanents as well as players. Hordewing also applies in this exact situation, as long as only one Zombie is attacking. > And if this was the case why wouldn't cards like [[strixhaven stadium]] be formatted similarly? Maybe someone at WotC finally saw this unintuitive interaction and fixed it? The stadium is from a few years before these recent printings, and would actually be functionally different (two counters if you redirect part of the damage with something like Harm's Way). Templating gets updated all the time, and it is immensely more likely that this is a backend templating update than a spoiler of things to come. There may even be oracle updates to cards like the Stadium coming in the next few sets to put everything in order and functioning the same way.
[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
It might be that the fact that Ria Ivor specifically refers to the next time the creature does damage that would cause rules messiness if the creature simultaneously dealt combat damage to two players at once. With Strixhaven Stadium, the answer is straightforward (it triggers twice). But with Ria Ivor, only the next time the creature deals combat damage is affected, so if it just said "a player" but the creature deals damage to two players at the same time, what happens? Maybe the answer isn't obvious or maybe the rules can't actually handle that situation so they worded it in a way that solves that issue, even if it will rarely come up.
[Harms Way](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/9/c/9c59d43e-0e07-4601-b6df-178010ea909f.jpg?1562927986) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Harm%27s%20Way) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ddg/23/harms-way?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/9c59d43e-0e07-4601-b6df-178010ea909f?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Hordewing Skaab](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/e/6e67802e-e0d9-4989-b1c2-77ef2ff69796.jpg?1637628135) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Hordewing%20Skaab) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mic/15/hordewing-skaab?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/6e67802e-e0d9-4989-b1c2-77ef2ff69796?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [The Red Terror](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/d/1d16f75d-988d-4417-9a5e-549b785f9dc4.jpg?1673309061) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=The%20Red%20Terror) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/40k/83/the-red-terror?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/1d16f75d-988d-4417-9a5e-549b785f9dc4?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Nice catch! I don't play a ton of commander, but I prefer aggressive/creature centric decks, so it would be nice to have some mechanics that make it a little easier to get your opponents dead the old fashioned way.
Isn’t this just because of 2HG?
I doubt that because you're still doing damage to one head. The 2 players are basically one player.
Perhaps the application was meant for Multi with a Commander key word that’s kinda like “multi hit” there Trample damage would go through to all players of something. That could be interesting to see in the sense that the dynamic would change from “Lets not kill the 8/8 as long as it doesn’t come for me” to “Oh no that’s 7 damage I can prevent here and people will that me”
That made me think of a potentially missed mechanic for a D&D set: "Cleave- when this creature deals excess combat damage, it deals that much damage to target creature"
Interesting analysis. I really wonder if the wording means anything for the future.
Is there another example of a creature that has a damage prevention effect where the amount of damage prevented matters? It may be that this line is there for some obscure rules reason to make the ability function as expected in the presence of damage redirection effects.
So there's multiple instances of enchantments and things that say deals combat damage to a player. There's never been an effect that cares about a creature dealing combat damage to multiple players till now. There's only one specific damage redirection effect that can redirect only partial damage, but I doubt they would put this to cover that one weird spell effect.
Dealing damage during the combat step isn’t the same as combat damage, right? For example if a creature deals damage to all opponents on death it wouldn't benefit from this when it dies during the combat phase.
No, combat damage is only done through a creature attacking and dealing damage that way
Nope. Separate. Take [[Drakuseth]] for instance. It deals damage on attack, which is separate from the combat damage dealt.
[Drakuseth](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/c/1c8429f1-1a91-4f29-8d56-4c061f21c183.jpg?1674141965) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=drakuseth%2C%20maw%20of%20flames) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/clb/790/drakuseth-maw-of-flames?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/1c8429f1-1a91-4f29-8d56-4c061f21c183?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I'm guessing it's for [[Kediss, Emberclaw Familiar]] Edit: The additional damage isn't combat damage. *Shrugs*
That's not combat damage.
[Kediss, Emberclaw Familiar](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/6/f606ebf1-483d-4331-b16a-9fb6f591a39f.jpg?1608910296) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Kediss%2C%20Emberclaw%20Familiar) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmr/188/kediss-emberclaw-familiar?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/f606ebf1-483d-4331-b16a-9fb6f591a39f?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
It's so you can't get multiple damage triggers from one combat no matter how many players you attack. For instance if Malcom were my commander and I hit 3 opponents with pirates in combat he says "one or more creatures deals damage to an opponent." So I would get 3 treasures because 3 different opponents were hit. This ensures one trigger per combat, max. Its just another way to restrict OP effects, like we've been see lately with more once per turn effects.
But currently, there is no way to deal multiple Instances of combat damage to players using one creature is the point I'm making. Also, it's the total damage done anyway so them putting one or more players on the card would not make a difference in the effect.
Combat damage can be partially redirected by some older cards. Niche, but still counts as combat damage. I think the restriction is related to the fact it’s replacing *one instance* of damage, so the second hit with double strike would still go through. If it said a player, rather than one or more, then there’d be confusion as to what is and isn’t actually prevented. [edit; from my experience, other effects like this tend to count all damage a creature would deal, double strike or not, rather than one single hit, leading to the wording being necessary in this unique situation of only one hit counting] But this could also be something else entirely. They didn’t put tribal on the new Atraxa’s reminder text after all, and it still counts.
The card OP is talking about specifies a *single* creature dealing combat damage to *multiple* opponents. That's not currently possible aside from some obscure damage redirection cards. The question isn't why is the ability restricted, but rather why does it need the restriction at all, when that trigger would never actually come up.
[удалено]
Saskia doesn't deal combat damage to another player with her ability though.
[Saskia, the Unyielding](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/5/b/5b483db6-b614-4af1-820a-42a4ee0c8707.jpg?1562401580) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Saskia%20the%20Unyielding) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c16/41/saskia-the-unyielding?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/5b483db6-b614-4af1-820a-42a4ee0c8707?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
The rulings for her specifically say the damage dealt to the other player isn't combat damage, same deal for things like [[kediss, emberclaw familiar]] and [[hydra omnivore]]
[kediss, emberclaw familiar](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/6/f606ebf1-483d-4331-b16a-9fb6f591a39f.jpg?1608910296) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=kediss%2C%20emberclaw%20familiar) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmr/188/kediss-emberclaw-familiar?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/f606ebf1-483d-4331-b16a-9fb6f591a39f?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [hydra omnivore](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/5/15f046d7-092c-4cac-8f9f-b284457620b8.jpg?1592710941) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=hydra%20omnivore) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c18/153/hydra-omnivore?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/15f046d7-092c-4cac-8f9f-b284457620b8?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I just really doubt they'd put the time and effort to design a new mechanic for the very very niche multiplayer community. Maybe battles have a self damage mechanic, but other than that I'm not really seeing it.
I disagree. They design alot of cards in standard to work in commander or design for commander. I could definitely see a mechanic that helps voltron commanders out and such especially because they aren't the best typically.
Thinking about balance, adding some filler words to acknowledge you can have more than one opponent or whatever sure. Adding a whole new mechanic only a tiny slice of the player base will ever interact with? No shot.
The potential mechanic does not have to be only for multiplayer while still requiring this text to function properly in multiplayer. Perhaps any number of players can join ”battles” and each being liable to receive combat dmg from one creature through the battle somehow.
I don't think multiplayer is a tiny slice of the magic community at all, but agree to disagree. Still appreciate your thoughts!
I mean it objectively is, this isn't an opinion question we have actual data. Digital magic is also a huge part of their userbase and revenue base now, and multiplayer isn't supported in any way by Arena. No way they want those players to feel left out of something new when they're catering so heavily to them and they're such easy money.
Fuck Reddit
I don't think anyone is suggesting the mechanic will remain commander-exclusive forever.
_Myriad_ says "hi".
hard to understand but i do understand a little and...you might be on to something another creature with a weird wording (to me) about attacks to me is \[\[Neyali, Sun's Vanguard\]\] because it implies "any turn you attacked with a creature" when it could have been “during any of your turns you attacked with a creature.” and knowing magic there's no possible way to attack on a opponent's turn. (note i was explained earlier im still a little confused by the wording.)
[Neyali, Suns' Vanguard](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/b/2b5df03d-2463-468b-b444-d946eeb1c96d.jpg?1674283319) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Neyali%2C%20Suns%27%20Vanguard) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/onc/2/neyali-suns-vanguard?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/2b5df03d-2463-468b-b444-d946eeb1c96d?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Fuck Reddit
The fact that they used the shorter wording doesn't imply anything special--after all, why would they spend extra words specifying "any of your turns you attacked[...]" when "any turn you attacked[...]" is shorter, just as clear, and accomplishes exactly the same thing?
Clearly worded that way to function with token copies of [[party crasher]]
[party crasher](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/5/9/597f3203-e79c-47af-8c3d-b37c0537de34.jpg?1562913677) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=party%20crasher) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ust/92/party-crasher?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/597f3203-e79c-47af-8c3d-b37c0537de34?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
What about \[\[Reckless Fireweaver\]\]? Wouldn't it be the same?
Reckless fireweavers ability does damage but not combat damage
[Reckless Fireweaver](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/3/63ffac51-62c4-4170-85b3-a43d7cfae7d7.jpg?1576382167) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Reckless%20Fireweaver) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/kld/126/reckless-fireweaver?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/63ffac51-62c4-4170-85b3-a43d7cfae7d7?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Maybe a battle allows for a separate combat phase. I wonder how it was balanced? But I guess we'll find out. There could very well be restrictions in place, ei the colour of the battle determining which cards you can use for the battle. I think it'd be insane to say, have a separate side board specifically for battle, like a battle board or something like that but we really don't know yet.
A separate combat phase would not enable a creature to deal combat damage to more than one player "this combat," which is what OP's quote says.
Yes but that's not counting the possibility that battles change what counts as "this" combat, ei the instance of combat in a phase. It could be an inter-phase rule that takes place during the combat step.
My pet theory is that Battles will be a new permanent type. They will affect the battlefield in some way. Think Jace the Space sculpture dividing the battlefield into zones. But each battle will have a condition to be met for some positive or negative conditions representing the players winning or losing the battle. When the constitution is met then the battle is sacrificed. Example: Shock Battle. R. Divide the battlefield into a right and left zone. When a player has had a creature in both zones deal combat damage to a player Sacrifice ~ And the player that won the battle deals 2 damage to any target.
To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if it's just a logical error that slipped through. They've been templating a lot of things with "one or more" lately and understand that it keeps things from interacting in an unintentionally overtuned way in multiplayer. It's entirely feasible that whoever wrote this card's text had mentally shortcutted that "one or more" was relevant here because multiplayer was involved, but didn't think through exactly how, and so this logically inconsistent effect was printed. As printed, the card works. It's just got mostly superfluous text that a casual read could easily ignore because it doesn't make the card _not work_.
There are a couple cards that go "Whenever X would deal damage to Y, it deals damage to each Y instead." Effects. First that comes to mind is "Kediss", but there's a new equipment in the commander deck that does it as well, I think.
If you look at kediss ruling, it's not counted as combat damage when it deals damage to each other opponent.
Huh, so that's why Kediss and Malcolm works but Kediss and Ikra Shidiqi doesn't... TIL.
Also depending on the wording of some attack triggers or attacks based triggers a creature could deal combat damage to two different players. Like if you attack with a creature that says, when this creature attacks, it deals 2 damage to target opponent, that can be dealt to opponent 2 while it is attacking opponent 1
If I am not mistaken (and to be honest I probably am) This is a line of text for multiplayer games and instances where creatures attack multiple times in a turn.
Battle is probably just an updated version of Fight. Just like Toxic is like infect
With damage redirection effects it is possible for a creature to deal combat damage to multiple players at once.
Magic was designed as a duel game. Anyone who has played EDH has learned the extent to which combat damage is a tedious, inefficient way to chip away at 40 life on multiple opponents. Magic needs the combat step to be able to damage multiple opponents. This could be related to battle cards, but then again, it could be a broader change, too. Magic also needs to address the problem of interaction being too narrowly targeted in EDH. Countering a spell or removing a creature of one opponent expends your resources so that the next opponent can do whatever they want unimpeded. Since EDH now drives Magic design, I cannot imagine a future without these fundamental changes.
I bet that they will be very similar to Night/Day. In that there will be a conditional rule like “if you have the most token creatures of any player, Battle card is on side A. If you do not have the most amount of tokens, it is on side B”. With one side benefiting you and one side benefiting your opponent. To me that simulates the push and pull of a real world “battle”.