💾 Archived View for idiomdrottning.org › a-band-apart captured on 2024-05-10 at 11:41:18. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

A Band Apart (for Magic)

So “banding” hasn’t been seen since 1997 because it’s the most complicated mechanic of all time.

It wasn’t really played a lot even when it was legal. Not because the cards were weak. No, banding is both a very powerful and very flavorful mechanic.

But it caused confusion. Both rules confusion (as in: a lot of people — maybe not you, dear reader, but a lot of other people even at the highest levels of play, were unable to explain how the rules worked) and board state confusion (range strike and “Samite”-style healing have also been removed: they both had super simple rules but caused complicated board states and difficult combat math). And, the interaction of those two types of confusion was out of this world. So it had to go.

And I miss it so much.

But... we can solve two problems in one go by... splitting it up!

Part of the problem of the mechanic is that it just does too much.

Instead, now we have two separate abilities. (Hold your references to the xkcd standards joke...!)

Some cards would have one, some the other, and (especially in the beginning) only very few would have both. If, and only if, both abilities prove themselves, then we could start seeing them appear together on the same more often. And if that works, well, then we have the return of banding as we knew and loved it.

Here is how they would look with the reminder text for both.

Attack banding (When attacking, this creature may form a band with one other creature, or join an existing band. A blocker that blocks any part of the band blocks the entire band.)

Tactical assignment (You choose how damage from any creature blocking or blocked by this creature is assigned.)

Banding (This creature has both Attack banding and Tactical assignment)

As you can see, still kinda complicated even on their own... but managable.

One of the things people found weird was that when attacking, you could have at most one non-bander, but when blocking, you only need at least one bander for it to be useful.

But when split up, you could see how that kind of does make sense. Because you’re not actually forming any bands when blocking. You’re just blocking normally.

Another thing that’s always been kind of a let down is how evasion abilities (like flying) is kind of a nonbo with banding. Although banding is a very strong ability, this dysergy can be frustrating and confusing. “Whaddaya mean my Mesa Pegasus is blocked by your Craw Wurm just because I banded it with a Benalish Hero? I wanted the hero to ride on the pegasus... T_T”

This proposal doesn’t fix that but hopefully the “A blocker that blocks any part of the band blocks the entire band” is clear enough.

So that’s rules complexity addressed. What about board complexity? I think a lot of the board complexity did directly stem from the rules complexity. As far as how they play... these abilities are kind of like reverse menace. You can block me (or attack into me), but I’m gonna bring a buddy along. Sure, I can see how tactical assignment could result in board stalls or feel like it’s hard to math out what would happen if I attack into it. And board stalls is something that R&D has taken steps to try to avoid. Could be that tactical assignment, as flavorful and interesting as it is, is an ability you’d might want to use sparingly and keep out of low rarities. Only playtesting can tell.

Attack banding on the other hand can help break up board stalls. It’s something I can see being very healthy for limited. (Or, rather, I know it’s healthy for limited because we play with banding cards all the time since our Mirage cube includes the banding cards from Weatherlight.)

PS:

I get that the words “blocker” and “attacker” aren’t really rules language but reminder text isn’t rules text.

If you want rules text...

Here’s how this proposal would look, edited into the current comprehensive rules. (Note to people who stumble upon this page randomly: this is only my suggestion for how the rules could be written. If you’re looking for the real rules, they are here.)

702.21. Banding
702.21a “Attack banding” and “tactical assignment” are a static abilities that modifies the rules for combat. The term banding refers to having both “attack banding” and “tactical assignment” abilities.
702.21b “Bands with other” is a special form of “attack banding” and a special form of “tactical assignment”. If an effect causes a permanent to lose banding, the permanent loses all “bands with other” abilities as well.
702.21c As a player declares attackers, they may declare that one or more attacking creatures with “attack banding” and up to one attacking creature without “attack banding” are all in a “band.” They may also declare that one or more attacking [quality] creatures with “bands with other [quality]” and any number of other attacking [quality] creatures are all in a band. A player may declare as many attacking bands as they want, but each creature may be a member of only one of them.
702.21d All creatures in an attacking band must attack the same player or planeswalker.
702.21e Once an attacking band has been announced, it lasts for the rest of combat, even if something later removes banding, “attack banding”, or “bands with other” from one or more of the creatures in the band.
702.21f An attacking creature that’s removed from combat is also removed from the band it was in.
702.21g Banding or “attack banding” doesn’t cause attacking creatures to share abilities, nor does it remove any abilities. The attacking creatures in a band are separate permanents.
702.21h If an attacking creature becomes blocked by a creature, each other creature in the same band as the attacking creature becomes blocked by that same blocking creature.

Example: A player attacks with a band consisting of a creature with flying and a creature with swampwalk. The defending player, who controls a Swamp, can block the flying creature if able. If they do, then the creature with swampwalk will also become blocked by the blocking creature(s).

702.21i If one member of a band would become blocked due to an effect, the entire band becomes blocked.
702.21j During the combat damage step, if an attacking creature is being blocked by a creature with “tactical assignment”, or by both a [quality] creature with “bands with other [quality]” and another [quality] creature, the defending player (rather than the active player) chooses how the attacking creature’s damage is assigned. That player can divide that creature’s combat damage as they choose among any creatures blocking it. This is an exception to the procedure described in rule 510.1c.
702.21k During the combat damage step, if a blocking creature is blocking a creature with “tactical assignment”, or both a [quality] creature with “bands with other [quality]” and another [quality] creature, the active player (rather than the defending player) chooses how the blocking creature’s damage is assigned. That player can divide that creature’s combat damage as they choose among any creatures it’s blocking. This is an exception to the procedure described in rule 510.1d.
702.21m Multiple instances of banding on the same creature are redundant. Multiple instances of “bands with other” of the same kind on the same creature are redundant.

xkcd standards joke

they are here