Discussion in 'Rules Questions' started by Limited, Aug 4, 2005.
From today's Bennie Smith article:
There goes my Soulgorger Org/Teferi's Veil deck..
It kinda made sense... phasing didn't trigger CIP abilities, so why should it trigger leaves play abilities? Well, it makes sense both ways, but I can see changing the latter is easier than having it do the former
Cool. It didn't matter much to me because I only ever really played Rainbow Efreet and this doesn't change it or does it?
Only if you were using it in a combo with some type of leaves play ability...
Umm... isn't this old news? I seem to remember playing without the leaving play thing and only the coming into play thing...
You were playing it wrong then. It was the other way around.
I'm writing an article about this as we speak. It makes me very, very sad that my "I dissappear" deck built around the worst Orgg and the worst Fish now requires cremation.
You mean "disappear." This change is just ridiculous. The aura thing doesn't really improve the game, but at least it doesn't change very many cards functionally.
What justifies a change like this? Casual players have been using phasing cards since Mirage and tournament play has seen very little of any of them (Rainbow Efreet or something on occasion, but not much). During that sizeable portion of Magic's history, when have players went and said, "You know, I wish phasing didn't trigger leaves play abilities"? What positive impact can this change have? The ONLY change I see it making is ruining casual decks like the one Orgg is talking about.
No, the deck's name is "I Dissappear." I am The Orgg.
The deck is somewhere on Essential Magic's site.
Here's a question: In all of phasing's history, how many players thought that phasing in triggered comes into play abilities?
I think that's impossible to answer, Spidey. There have probably been players that thought it triggered CIP abilities and not leaves play abilities, players who thought it triggered both, players who thought it triggered neither, etc. There are probably still a lot of players who don't know what it does. I don't see that as an intrinsic problem with phasing. Any player who actually goes and reads what phasing does will probably be spared any confusion on anything but the most confusing interactions that involve phasing.
But that's the whole crux of the matter: it was that way for a long time (leaves play abilities worked, CIP abilities didn't) that people, upon reading what phasing did, just accepted it and worked it to their advantage somehow. But the point is, it's not consistent. Either it should work for both leaves play or CIP or not. Apparently the former is too complicated to handle for all the existing cards so the latter route was taken.
People will now read how phasing works and again, work it into decks if they want to. But just because "it's worked in the past with no problem" is not a reason to not change it. That's just silly and wishful nostalgia.
Phasing's rules were created. Unless they're so terribly done that they cannot be explained in a logical manner (Bands with Other), why change?
I can't say or remember if WOTC said why it was done that way in the first place - allowing leaves play abilities to trigger while not CIP. But I think it was a bad creation to do it that way and now it gets to be cleaned up (and I guess you can thank MTGO for that since if it wasn't going in there, you're right, it probably wouldn't have been looked at).
C'mon, do you think it should work one way and not the other? You don't think that's counter-intuitive? Barring personal prejudice and knowledge? It's kind of like how CIP abilities worked before 6th rules, when you couldn't respond to them yet you could respond to other sorts of triggers.
Does ~EVERYTHING~ have to be consistant?
It makes things easier... as you can see, Nightstalkers had been playing the wrong way with phasing, thinking it was the other way around...
I smelt sarcasm, there.
It might well signal that there are cards coming in Ravinca that need the Phasing rules rewriting to avoid them being broken. I'm guessing this may well also mean Phasing being present in Ravinca - it tallies with the sudden decision to print Mirage in MTGO if they had been having to make Phasing work anyway for Ravinca it was less of a stretch to add Mirage to the MTGO roster.
It's like somebody would have gone "but why did they have to change the Legends rule?" just before a buttload of legends arrived in Kamigawa block.
It looks pretty consistent to me. Every time a creature phases out, any leaves play abilities that apply become triggered. And every time a creature phases in, CIP abilities are NOT triggered. I see no problem. Leaving play and coming into play are different. Comes into play abilities are not the same as leaves play abilities. The only inconsistency is in going back and changing the a major detail of a mechanic years later. If there's a need for this, then the change is entirely warranted, but so far no one has presented a need. It really isn't confusing, it makes sense unless you ignore the fact that phasing in and phasing out are completely different to begin with.
Phasing in triggering CIP abilities would be more than too complicated to handle. It would warp every phasing card to have potentially more dangerous functions. I don't think anyone could predict what this would do on a practical level, but it would create dozens and more probably hundreds of new interactions with phasing in casual play (not to mention tournament play). I think changing phasing in so that it triggers CIP abilities was always out of the question. But WHY should it be one way or the other? Why not leave it the way it was? Who benefits from the change? Who was hurt by leaving it the way it was? I can't answer either of those. I only know it hurts casual players with decks that use phasing out/leaves play ability interactions. This is a very small percentage of Magic players, but that doesn't mean ruining their decks needlessly is good.
Actually, older casual players that don't follow rules changes much will probably take a while to get used to it. In the grand scheme of the game, it's not all that big of a detail, so it's nothing that will be driving those players away from the game or anything.
I think it having worked in the past with no problem is a perfectly good reason not to change it. "If it aint broke, don't fix it." There might be plenty of better reasons for the case of changing it, but somehow I haven't seen any of them. I don't see how nostalgia factors into this at all. This isn't "summon X" being changed to "creature X." It isn't the eighth edition cardface change. It isn't about aesthetics or flavor.
The last time I used a phasing card in one of my decks was probably more than two years ago, and the last time I used a phasing card that wasn't Rainbow Efreet or Reality Ripple in one of my decks was further back still. I don't see myself using phasing. And I don't know that players want to preserve this detail of phasing for the sake of keeping it the way it was back in the day. It is a change that matters. It really does completely change the way almost every phasing card interacts with other cards, and the only decks this affects are the ones it hurts.
I don't think changing mechanics from back in the day is an inherently bad thing, but in this particular instance, where is the benefit?
Interesting thought. Very interesting.
I'm not sure it is correct, as I think the change is because of the larger amount of 'pros' in RandD, myself. Most Pros don't want to remember cornercases and 'complicated' things that they'll probably never use, such as Banding. Most wouldn't use something they didn't understand even if it was better than another card or a land.
Separate names with a comma.