Just realized the phrasing on this is a bit off. The intention is that you pay counters from the player similar to energy, but this card cycle has its own defense counters which wasn't meant to be spent. Thanks for pointing this out!

Congratulations, you just designed a planeswalker!

Perhaps there is a better wording for the intent of this card, but this card cycle was meant to replicate the group-hug like incentives that curse of opulence provides. Essentially it's a risk reward for the person deck building as they aren't guaranteed the transformed card (The only upside to having opponents get this effect is that they are attacking another opponent). The effect wasn't meant to be timed but reoccurring, so when the battle is defeated it'll return after the time counters are removed and a new defender is selected. Each color has a minor etb that can be beneficial, and a powerful effect (for not needing to pay mana) on the transformed half. To provide an incentive to defending battles, I plan on designing cards that reward defense similar to monarch but I've haven't put much thought into it yet. I just wanted to expand the battle card type and see what can be done within its limitations. I'm curious how well flipping the mechanic on its head would work such as a battle that the caster defends that has a strong effect for its cost with the downside of it being vulnerable to destruction. The question I keep encountering is whether or not the lack of battle removal will make this expansion of battles too powerful as the only way to destroy them is to damage them which on some board states is a win more card (To some extent damaging any target is the most reasonable removal). Curious on your thoughts overall, I think this new card type has a lot of possibilities to be explored!

I like the idea of a battle with a timed outcome, but the mechanic to determine who protects the card makes this weirder than necessary. It would make sense for you to protect the battle yourself since you can get the effect without attacking the battle.

The big issue is that other players can steal the effect which makes this super swingy and also disincentivizes putting the card into your deck to begin with.

Battles where either player can get the effect feels like something from a neutral deck - Planechase-style.

These are all good points. This card in specific does need some tweaking (It was an older card in the treasonous cycle), and I might look into play testing some of these to determine if treasonous as a whole needs tweaking.

This is mixing Servos with Thopters. :(

These treasonous designs are all incredibly parasitic and trying to offset a drawback - encouraging you to do something you don't like, because the designer is fully aware that you won't like treasonous. Rather than encourage you to have your nice cake, you're asked to eat mud. Poisonous, treasonous mud.

If treasonous was just one aspect of a larger whole, that might be worth it, but that's all there is.

Finally! My treasonous liuetenant pays off! ... that really isn't much of a reward, is it?

Yeah the mechanic by its self is a heavy drawback in base tribal decks. I was more looking to be a piece to a combo for either a treasonous combo (like the five color card that has treasonous token synergies) or just a good source of self inflicted damage for some combo (I don't exactly know one off the top of my head, but I bet there is something that this can pair nicely in)

Mmm. On its own, it's pretty terrbile. This set does have ways to turn treason to your advantage (opponent has to pay 1 per treason creature you control, etc.) so I guess this is an enabler for that deck.

I'm confused - treasonous is a drawback, right? Why would I want to play, or what's the point of, a 1/2 for with a drawback?

I would btw include the reminder text for treasonous in these (so "Treasonous" within square brackets).