In ONE you should realy have included at least one non siege battle to make the fact that only sieges are defended by opponents and have two sides clear, several people including the YouTuber nikachu (who you shouldn’t check out because he does custom card reviews but is a good example of this) just don’t get it (as proven in any custom card reviews stream where he reviews any of the several non siege battles of different types made by the community)

Normally, we we introduce a new thing we limit how it gets used. For instance, we thought up MDFCs when we first put made TDFCs, but took our time putting it into a product. I believe including both in the same product would have been a mistake.

Are you able to share what design aspects of the Battles that we’ve seen are intrinsic to Battles and what aspects are intrinsic to Sieges? What does it mean for a card to be a Battle?

It has a defense that can be attacked, and it has abilities.

What potential design space do future Battles hold? Is there plans to make them something like Sagas in terms of versatility?

Sieges are just one way to do Battles. There are many other ways to use them.

Hey Mark!
Next time we see battles, would you expect Sieges to make an appearance, or solely an entirely new subtype?

We’ll have to wait and see. : )

And with Battle defined, what makes a particular Battle a Siege?

It goes to your opponent’s side and you attack it. All existing Sieges also transform into something when you deal enough damage to it, but I’m not sure if that is inherently built into Sieges.

I don’t understand why some mechanics get the “has to connect to the flavor of the card” and others don’t. Sagas all have to represent some kind of story, but cards that scry don’t all have to flavorfully represent something that divines the future. The word “siege” might be the name of that particular battle subtype, but they don’t actually represent a “siege” based on what the word means. A “siege” is literally the absence of combat, it’s preventing a target from getting necessary resources in order to compel a surrender. It seems like you are drastically limiting your own design space by mandating that all cards with the subtype saga flavorfully represent a story, as opposed to just utilizing the mechanics of the card type.

Subtypes have a stronger creative restriction. Equipment and Vehicles, for example, also have a tighter creative rein. As for siege, you’re using the first definition. Sieges can also be applied to other types of conflicts, usually where one side has a more defensive position. Your opponent has the battle and you have to fight through their resources to get to it.

Do battles need to be double faced cards?

No, but Sieges do, I believe.

You've mentioned twice now that Battles can be removed by the damage colors like planeswalkers or are the most likely candidates. However, damage doesn't get rid of current battles (Sieges), it gives their controller more value by allowing them to cast the other side. This might not hold for future executions of the mechanic, but for now red being able to remove opposing battles isn't really true.

I said there are natural components in the game that can be used to deal with them. With Sieges, creatures (mostly) have to deal combat damage to them. The game has numerous answers to that threat.

Right now the rules for battles say that with no subtypes, a battle is protected by its controller. If WotC wanted to do a set where battles are defended by opponents similar to Sieges, but AREN'T transforming, would the rules for battles be changed to be closer to Sieges or would a new subtype be created?

We would most likely make a different battle subtype.

The only thing I'm disappointed with Sieges is that we got a cycle of cards called siege in Fate Reforged, but they aren't battles and even less sieges. Those names would have been perfect for the battles!

It’s hard to predict the game’s future.