Retaliate Subtype

[Arlemus]

(I know this has been brought up once or so before, but I think it deserves more attention.  I just checked the rules supplement and there doesn't seem to be an entry about this spell.)

I think the subtype on this spell really needs to be changed.  Actually, it needs to exist in the first place.  This enchantment is obviously a command, overlooked likely due to the fact that it was in the base set.  This isn't the first time this has happened (skeletal sentry) and I'm surprised it hasn't been changed as of yet.

[Shad0w]

Just checked and unless it changed in the newest printing it is still untyped.

[mwcard=MW1E33] Retaliate[/mwcard]

[echephron]

Here we go again with another 5 page thread about a core card needing a warlord friendly subtype, only 2 days after the skeletal sentry victory. Joking aside, It would be nice for Gurmash enchantment variety and the command ring, but there could be concerns that it would become underpriced.

[Arlemus]

Here we go again with another 5 page thread about a core card needing a warlord friendly subtype, only 2 days after the skeletal sentry victory. Joking aside, It would be nice for Gurmash enchantment variety and the command ring, but there could be concerns that it would become underpriced.

What can I say, I'm greedy 

But in all seriousness I don't really see that being a problem.  If the argument is, "if you have a command ring out it might be undercosted" then my rebuttal would be that having to pay 3 mana and a QC to make something cost 1 mana less isn't exactly overpowering.

Sure, this could potentially mean that you're paying 3 mana for a 4, 5, or even 6 dice attack, but the initial investment to make that happen I think balances the situation out.  There's already spells like power strike, hurl rock, etc, that the warlord and others have access to that are relatively easy to get a nice ratio of dice to mana with.  Also, if you're getting 5 or more dice out of Retaliate (for 3 mana) as a Warlord you probably have to invest more than just the ring anyway to make that happen.

The main aspect I'd appreciate as a Warlord player, if Retliate gained the command subtype, would be increased viability.  It would open more creatures and more situations to consider retaliate, which would be nice.  There's also the thematic issue where the spell sounds like a command (like brace yourself, power strike, etc), has a quote from Lord Belicar at the bottom, yet somehow still isn't a command?  It just doesn't seem right and looks awkward with an empty subtype.

Just checked and unless it changed in the newest printing it is still untyped.

[mwcard=MW1E33] Retaliate[/mwcard]

Glad it wasn't just me missing anything, thanks 

[Arlemus]

Is there really no one else out there that agrees with me? 

[sIKE]

Is there really no one else out there that agrees with me? 

I feel the same about [mwcard=MW1Q09]Enchanter's Ring[/mwcard] missing the Mana subtype but got no love there....

[Arlemus]

Is there really no one else out there that agrees with me? 

I feel the same about Enchanters Ring missing the Mana subtype but got no love there....

I feel your pain, sIKE.  I just think Retaliate is a really good example of a spell that needs re-examined in the context of the expansions.  If Retaliate would've came out after FM vs Warlord, it would've definitely had the command subtype.

[echephron]

Now if retaliate had a magebind+2 or an x reveal cost, I would fully support the change. As it is now, 4 mana for a "Battle Fury"-esque attack which keeps all melee+x bonuses is already scary. Remember how they had to errata Battle Fury because it got the melee+x bonus?

Imagine this and tell me Retaliate isn't too good already (in semi-optimal circumstances):
A warlock with lash of hellfire and melee+4
for 4 mana and a quickcast he (eventually) gets an 8 dice attack with a chance of 2 burn conditions. Its not a stretch to imagine that the enemy mage(or a creature you want to kill) will melee attack you at some point during the match.

That's not including the piercing +3/Melee +3 bonus the warlock got this turn from sacrificial altar(because he already melee attacked your mage this turn).  (or piercing+8/melee+8 if you are doing the most optimal retaliate attack)

Edit: my bad, I should have listed a warlord example, but you can get him up to 8 dice easily.

[Boocheck]

I must say myself, i never played retaliate so far (it is my fault ) but giving it a command subtype, i might give it a try. Thing is, if i play small creatures, Defend is much more better choice for me more then retaliate.

"If there is no war, warriors hungering for battle creates one for themselves" - so i fully undestand that after skeletal sentry vicotry, there is a lust for more challenges but i support this

[Wildhorn]

I don't understand why people are talking about the "Battkefuryness" or amount of dice. Guys, the spell already does that. Getting Command subtype won't change that.

The only changes that will happens is that it might get a 1 mana discount if Warlord has the ring equiped (and anyway, another command spell most likely will be cast that turn too, so the mana reduction is minor) and Gurmash will be able to cast it (here again, if Gurmash could cast another command and Warlord cast Retaliate).

So there is nothing broken here.

This change would only affect the game IF and only IF there is no other Command spell cast in the same round. As soon as 2 command spells are cast in the same round, Retaliate getting Command spell has almost no effect (would matter only if Gurmash and Warlord are not both at same distance of Retaliate target).

[sIKE]

I feel your pain, sIKE.  I just think Retaliate is a really good example of a spell that needs re-examined in the context of the expansions.  If Retaliate would've came out after FM vs Warlord, it would've definitely had the command subtype.

I guess no one caught the fact that like Ring of Command (if this spell had the Command Subtype), the [mwcard=MW1Q09]Enchanter's Ring[/mwcard] gives a mana discount on this spell as the mage who equips this ring will always cast Retaliate on a Friendly Creature. Oh the irony!

But yes I agree for consistency's sake Retaliate should have the command subtype.

[Arlemus]

I don't understand why people are talking about the "Battkefuryness" or amount of dice. Guys, the spell already does that. Getting Command subtype won't change that.

The only changes that will happens is that it might get a 1 mana discount if Warlord has the ring equiped (and anyway, another command spell most likely will be cast that turn too, so the mana reduction is minor) and Gurmash will be able to cast it (here again, if Gurmash could cast another command and Warlord cast Retaliate).

So there is nothing broken here.

This change would only affect the game IF and only IF there is no other Command spell cast in the same round. As soon as 2 command spells are cast in the same round, Retaliate getting Command spell has almost no effect (would matter only if Gurmash and Warlord are not both at same distance of Retaliate target).

This sums this whole issue up really well.

As Wildhorn stated, changing the subtype to command only affects the Warlord, and functionally only then if it's the only command he reveals in a given round, or is using Gurmash.

Though I think it is an important change, the only real effect it would have would be a small quality of life upgrade for the Warlord and the core set.

[Arlemus]

I must say myself, i never played retaliate so far (it is my fault ) but giving it a command subtype, i might give it a try. Thing is, if i play small creatures, Defend is much more better choice for me more then retaliate.

"If there is no war, warriors hungering for battle creates one for themselves" - so i fully undestand that after skeletal sentry victory, there is a lust for more challenges but i support this

I created this war, and intend to fight it, join my army of change 

I don't blame you for not trying it.  I've used it I think twice in the entire time I've played MW; it's just hard to justify in a Warlord book that isn't focused around battleforge (in which retaliate on your mage might be worth it).

To make the spell more appealing and be more consistent relative to other command spells, it needs to become a command itself.  The potential 1 mana discount a Warlord might get from it will likely be enough to justify using it on more creatures, lower cost ones with lower dice attacks, and open up more options for Gurmash.

[ringkichard]

This came up during my playtesting, and the conclusion I reached was that it would likely be too powerful on Gurmash. When I listed all the commands Gurmash could cast, I found that Retaliate would be the best. Much like Wall of Thorns is not a vine, Retaliate is not a command.

[Arlemus]

This came up during my playtesting, and the conclusion I reached was that it would likely be too powerful on Gurmash. When I listed all the commands Gurmash could cast, I found that Retaliate would be the best. Much like Wall of Thorns is not a vine, Retaliate is not a command.

When you say "best" do you mean the strongest in a majority of situations? Like, generically the best?

If you could elaborate some maybe it would help me understand, because just because something is generically the best to do doesn't logically make it too strong.  Like if you need extra dice, or armor, etc, retaliate doesn't help with those, so while I can definitely see it being something you can just put on whatever creature because that creature is eventually going to get hit, it doesn't seem OP.