Hello, everyone! My name's Jonathan and today I'll be talking about the battle card type. Or, to be more precise, whether or not battles were a failure as a card type.

What Are Battles?

Battle is the latest card type introduced in the Magic: The Gathering, first (and only) printed in March of the Machine. These battles all had the subtype of Siege. Because Sieges are the only type of battles we've seen, we have no way of knowing how they may differ from others types of battles, so our discussion today will only cover Sieges.

These permanents enter the battlefield under the protection of an opponent chosen by the owner of the battle and with a number of defense counters on them, indicated by the number on the black star in the corner.

Any player, other than the one protecting it, can attack them. Once the last defense counter is removed from them, they are exiled and the owner casts their back side from exile.

Sieges are all designed in the same way. First, they have an "enters the battlefield" (ETB) effect on the front side, which determines the overall theme of the card. The flips side confirms said theme through benefits connected to the front face.

For example, Invasion of AmonkhetInvasion of Amonkhet puts a total of 15 cards into graveyards (in a four-player game), so that its back side can later have a wider variety of possible creatures to copy. Invasion of EldraineInvasion of Eldraine wants to strip cards out of an opponent's hand; in this way, the second half of the card can deal constant damage to them.

How Do Battles Play?

Although I'm not a game designer, I don't think it's a hot take to say that the design of battles fits better in a 1v1 setting.

First, they specifically ask you to designate a "defender." This is an obvious choice in 60-cards formats; but it also creates some sort of a minigame/sub-game in multiplayer environments. In other words, when you play a battle, you create a special game dynamic between you and one other player, excluding your other opponents.

This isn't unheard of (think of Wedding RingWedding Ring, for example), but it's not common either.

Additionally, other players can only partially interact with this situation. In fact, they can send damage to the battle as well, but they can't block creatures going against it. This makes perfect sense from a ruling point of view, but also deepens the disconnection between the two players involved and the rest of the table.

Although in other cases it could make sense for different players to team up against a specific permanent (e.g., removing a planeswalker), in this case only the battle's owner would benefit from such a coalition. They'd be the only ones getting to cast the back side of the card.

Sure, there will be a niche case in which a timely Lightning BoltLightning Bolt from an opponent will remove the last defense counter from your Invasion of InnistradInvasion of Innistrad so that you can remove a creature from the graveyard out of nowhere. And sure, you'll talk about it for months (correctly so). But let's be real, no one is going to fight your battles for you.

All in all, battles don't really adapt well to a multiplayer environment. Instead, they generate a weirdly irrelevant one-on-one minigame (more on this later).

A Poor Roster of Battles

Let's get straight to the point: battles are, on average, pretty bad.

And while this is true, the interesting part of the issue is that this isn't only about their effects. Rather, it's about how irrelevant half of the card is most of the time.

Let's have a look at the three most popular battles in Commander.

Invasion of IkoriaInvasion of Ikoria is close to a staple in cEDH thanks to its ability to fetch creatures. And yet, no one even thinks about attacking it to flip it. All of what it actually does belongs to the front side.

The same goes for Invasion of ZendikarInvasion of Zendikar. Although being way more verbose, it can easily be boiled down to a functional reprint of Explosive VegetationExplosive Vegetation. It does have a whole other half to go along with the ramping effect but, let's be real: Are you ever going to go through the struggle of attacking it only to get a mana dork?

Invasion of SegoviaInvasion of Segovia actually does a bit better on this front. The first half is undeniably bad compared to the second, but at least they synergize with one another. Getting two 1/1s for is not good in any way, but if you pair them with the ability to convoke out noncreature spells, then they become much more valuable.

If we scroll down the list, we can only start scratching our heads.

Invasion of FioraInvasion of Fiora pairs an expensive and inefficient board wipe with a creature with two effects that are specific to the point of being basically blank. Once again, they'd work way better in a 60-card format; sure, you might not have counters to remove as frequently, but at least you'd be getting the card draw way easier (and that's the good part, let's be honest).

Invasion of TherosInvasion of Theros is simply the result of two inconvenient effects stapled together. The front side is a tutor, and that's always good in Commander. Except this is a worse version of Enlightened TutorEnlightened Tutor and Idyllic TutorIdyllic Tutor.

The back side is your average Enchantress effect, except it's locked behind a huge side quest. Namely:

• Casting and resolving Invasion of TherosInvasion of Theros;
• Dealing four points of damage to said battle (i.e., spending a combat step or more attacking it);
• Casting and resolving the back side of the card.

In the end, it's just easier to play Enchantress's PresenceEnchantress's Presence.

The same reasoning applies to Invasion of ShandalarInvasion of Shandalar. The second half of the card can be game-ending, but it requires so much effort that it's hardly worth it. The steps you have to follow to get it are so telegraphed that your opponents will have plenty of opportunities to try and stop you before your five-mana investment has done anything relevant.

The Bright Side

It wouldn't be fair to finish this article without mentioning the battles that had their fair bit of success, especially in Standard.

Invasion of ZendikarInvasion of Zendikar was a staple of the format, thanks to its ability to ramp and fix mana in Domain decks.

Then, Invasion of ArcaviosInvasion of Arcavios was a core part of the combo deck revolving around OmniscienceOmniscience and Abuelo's AwakeningAbuelo's Awakening

Lastly, Invasion of AmonkhetInvasion of Amonkhet saw some play as good piece in Dimir Midrange strategies.

So Were Battles a Failure?

So, were battles actually a failure? No, not at all.

And I know what you're saying: "But Jonathan, you've spent a whole article highlighting their flaws."

And that's true. But this doesn't mean they were a failure.

In my opinion, first and foremost, we have to keep in mind they weren't designed with Commander in mind. As I discussed, their focus on 1v1 dynamics makes it pretty clear.

Additionally, they lack proper support and/or the ability to be tutored for. Commander is inconsistent by nature, considering the unusual dimensions of the library. For this reason, tutoring and redundancy are such an important part of the game. The introduction of a card type that doesn't fit within this logic is difficult to ignore as a signal.

(And yes, I'm not counting the allegedly existing "double-faced" theme in Commander. Mostly because it didn't get any support other than Tetzin, Gnome ChampionTetzin, Gnome Champion).

In the end, battles, or more specifically Sieges, were a not-so-well-tuned experiment. The concept is interesting, as the dynamics these cards create are. But the whole idea lost its spark due to inefficiency and the lack of a true pull towards battles overall.

As discussed during the article, only one half is relevant for most of these cards. And if that half is the back side, then it's often not worth your efforts to get to it.

Take Invasion of ZendikarInvasion of Zendikar as an example. It's undeniably a good card, with a powerful effect that shines in Commander. And yet, cEDH players still most likely prefer Finale of DevastationFinale of Devastation, Green Sun's ZenithGreen Sun's Zenith and Nature's RhythmNature's Rhythm above it. That's because, although they are all creature tutors with an additional effect, Invasion of ZendikarInvasion of Zendikar's benefit is so niche and irrelevant that it'll hardly ever even be an option.

Even more so, in a casual environment, Invasion of ShandalarInvasion of Shandalar showcases how requiring too much effort kills a card. Is the back side of this battle powerful? Absolutely. Is it difficult to achieve? Just as much. Is it worth it in the end? Not at all.

Conclusion

In conclusion, rather than scrapping the idea as a total failure, I really hope for a "battles revamp" in the future. Reducing their costs and making both halves appealing (or synergic at the very least) could be a huge for future concepts. And who knows, the non-Siege battles could be vastly different from what we've seen so far.

One last thing before finishing the article: shoutout to Invasion of GobakhanInvasion of Gobakhan, the only battle I've ever personally bought. I paid 35€ (30-ish$) for a playset for my mono-white Humans deck in Pioneer; sleeved them three times at the very best; watched them plummet to 5€/playset.

Now it's on to you! What do you think of battles/Sieges? Which one is your favorite? Let me know in the comments!