Talk:Fight
first strike
When I hover it says:
- this creature deals combat damage before creatures with first strike
- does not apply when creatures "fight"
Hard for me to understand how it applies.
All I know is I had 3 plains mana in MTGA and thought I tapped my Moorland Inquisitor 2/2 to defeat a 2/1 Coral Merfolk without dying but he did die...
I had two MIs so maybe I attacked with the wrong one or didn't tap... lemme try again...
Ah yeah, I waited until blocker was declared THEN activated ability and it worked this time. Much easier to make sure you select the right guy if you wait til the arrows align. Tycio (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Folding in Bite
Neither Fight nor Bite seem to be expanding significantly in length any time soon, and there are pages of greater length, so should the Bite page be folded into this one? It might make some comparisons and cross-references more effective. 220.238.226.31 07:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Revisiting this. The bulk of the Bite article is a card list that is now supplanted by the tagger or a good scryfall regex. Shield (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree that the two should be folded into one article. They are conceptually similar but they are mechanically different, with bite being closer to burn and fight being a keyword action itself. I think the answer is the two articles need to be rewritten and expanded on. Fight was a response by Design to the issues mono-green was having removing opposing creatures in-flavor. Bite was then a response to fight getting blown-out by creature removal and the improving stat lines of non-green creatures. Design still, as far as I'm aware, hasn't settled on which one they want to use as the core green removal ability. -- 01:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- I favor the merge, because "bite" is not keyworded, and the mechanic came into common usage as a response to the gameplay patterns created by fight. Roughly 75% of all bite cards were printed post-fight, and I would consider the earlier examples incidental to the development narrative. Corveroth (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- This is interesting because, unlike most of the other pages with merge tags, there's a vote against it. How long should debate be held? As for the topic itself, I believe both will persist as core removal because of how Fight's increased risk lets it expand its design space, but bite is likely the common one as green needs a more universal removal spell. It may be a case similar to first vs double strike, where fight is relegated to more strategically deep or high impact uncommons and bite is the workhorse. In that case double strike gets a page as a named mechanic but the detail isn't much greater - in fact, bite already outwords it.
Finally, the merge tags on Biting directs discussion to Talk:Biting, which is not where the discussion is (yet; it could stand to move). Shield (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)- If we can't find consensus, someone without a stake in the discussion can close the matter, although with our activity rate here (relative to Wikipedia, and specifically the level of monitoring of maintenance categories), I'm not sure a week is the best timespan. As for what development might do in the future, we have no crystal ball to predict that, so I wouldn't want to move articles based on such. (Though that does not preclude us from using our judgment to shape reasonable expectations—a new plane should almost certainly have a category for characters from that plane, even if none have been revealed yet; a developer or character named in another article should be red linked until someone actually creates their article or asserts that they are not noteworthy, so that the red text signals to other editors that work is needed; etc.) Corveroth (talk) 06:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- This is interesting because, unlike most of the other pages with merge tags, there's a vote against it. How long should debate be held? As for the topic itself, I believe both will persist as core removal because of how Fight's increased risk lets it expand its design space, but bite is likely the common one as green needs a more universal removal spell. It may be a case similar to first vs double strike, where fight is relegated to more strategically deep or high impact uncommons and bite is the workhorse. In that case double strike gets a page as a named mechanic but the detail isn't much greater - in fact, bite already outwords it.
- I favor the merge, because "bite" is not keyworded, and the mechanic came into common usage as a response to the gameplay patterns created by fight. Roughly 75% of all bite cards were printed post-fight, and I would consider the earlier examples incidental to the development narrative. Corveroth (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree that the two should be folded into one article. They are conceptually similar but they are mechanically different, with bite being closer to burn and fight being a keyword action itself. I think the answer is the two articles need to be rewritten and expanded on. Fight was a response by Design to the issues mono-green was having removing opposing creatures in-flavor. Bite was then a response to fight getting blown-out by creature removal and the improving stat lines of non-green creatures. Design still, as far as I'm aware, hasn't settled on which one they want to use as the core green removal ability. -- 01:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)