Phasing rules about to change!

Discussion in 'Rules Questions' started by Limited, Aug 4, 2005.

  1. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Whose, my post or Nightstalkers post? I honestly wasn't trying to be sarcastic, just trying to point out an apparent specific case of confusion with phasing.

    Gizmo: Interesting view. I also disagree - I think it's just a cleanup thing precipitated by Mirage's future release in MTGO (just like the Enchantment Aura thing was a "cleanup thing"), but I will happily be surprised if it turns out that phasing IS re-introduced in Ravinca. :)

    Are you kidding? Why aren't leaves play abilities the same as CIP abilities (non-specific abilities aside, I'm talking about in the overall rules structure). If something phases in, it's "coming 'back' into play". It's switching zones. So why doesn't it trigger CIP abilities (aside from the obvious because that was how it was set up in the first place). Every other time a permanent switches zones, to or from play, it triggers leaves play and CIP abilities: hand to play, play to graveyard, graveyard to play. Why should phasing be different?

    I think I already said this and WOTC said this, which is why it's being changed to the other way around. There's no debate here.

    I can't answer that either, but like I said, I think it's the potential for screwups and a bunch of questions from "new" people who have never seen phasing before getting on MTGO and using Mirage and "all" of them asking why does it work with leaves play and not with CIP abilities (probably pretty much what happens to a new person learning phasing by picking up the physical cards right now). I hate to sound blunt but those casual players need to get over it. It's a rule change, same as the Legends change, which one could argue that it didn't hurt casual players either before so why change it. Obviously for that change, you can point to pros as a more representation for being behind the change but it's the same deal. So the deck doesn't work now - it's the same thing when cards are banned or change how they behave with other rules changes (like the Enchantment Aura change).

    I disagree. A good reason is that it doesn't make sense the way it works now, what I've been repeating all throughout the thread. It "worked" in the past because that was how it was. It'll work in the future, just with different decks.
  2. orgg Administrator

    I thought Nightstalkers was being sarcastic.

    I also wish the few cards that were negativly affected by the change would get erratta to keep working like they did. WIshful Thinking, I know...
  3. Oversoul The Tentacled One

    I don't see why you would think I'm kidding. To have phasing trigger CIP abilities would never have worked in the first place. I don't know why it was originally set up the way it was, but it isn't overly convoluted or anything. What was the problem with phasing? Are you saying there was one, or that you simply like it better the way it is now? I can't really tell. You're bringing up other situations where permanents leave and enter play, as though they have something to do with phasing.

    Casual players don't "need" to get over it. They actually don't have any choice in the matter. The rules change is almost certainly here to stay. Incidentally, I liked the legends rule change when I first saw it. The idea of being able to actually do something with a legend after an opponent already had the same one sounded like a good idea. After a while I became somewhat disenchanted with the whole thing. I don't think of it as worse than the old way of handling multiple legends, but it doesn't really seem better either.

    When cards are banned, decks still work, just not in the tournament format they were being used for. That's completely different from a rules change. As a side note, I consider the aura change to be a much worse thing than this relatively minor rules change with phasing.

    You have indeed said that it does not make sense. You can say it again if you like. The best reason you've presented as to WHY you think it does not make sense is that other times permanents leave or enter play, abilities are always triggered. Phasing doesn't really have anything to do with those other effects, so why do they matter?

    And if they did matter, the old way phasing worked would actually be closer to the way other cards work than the new one, as half the time abilities still trigger from it (whereas now, they never do).
  4. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Why wouldn't it have worked with phasing triggering CIP abilities (when phasing was introduced, since there were a lot less CIP abilities cards)? It's not overly convoluted, but it is convoluted. This new way, it's not convoluted at all.

    The problem with phasing was that it was not consistent with how it works with LP or CIP abilities. I bring up permanents leaving play (or rather, "zones of play") because it's relevant how leaves play abilities and CIP abilities work in all other cases. Why should phasing be different.

    Why do YOU think phasing is different from how the permanents behave from all other "zones of play" rules?

    Not if you follow that format even though you're not in a tournament (which most people do, except in your corner of the US)

    See my question above. Exactly how is phasing different from all other "zones of play"?

    Yes, the old way is closer. But since having abilities trigger all the time is too problematic for existing cards, consistency trumps "working closer".
  5. Oversoul The Tentacled One

    Leaving play and entering play are completely separate effects. And phasing out/in is not the same as simply leaving or entering play. What is convoluted about this? I see no need for a "consistency" between completely separate effects.

    Why would you say that? Firstly, there are over a half a dozen formats that are sanctioned officially, and quite a few others that are popular outside of those (Peasant format being a good example). Cards being banned are completely different from rules changes. I don't have a corner of anything.

    Are you asking how the phased out zone is different from other zones of play? It is different because it contains cards which will phase in at the beginning of their controller's next untap phase. No other zone has this trait.

    I don't consider "working closer" to be a priority. "Consistency" is arguably important, but since phasing isn't really inconsistent (except that phasing out and phasing in are different, but the new way of handling phasing doesn't change that).

    Edit: Fixed the error that I note in my next post.
  6. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Your comments indicate that you're too closely tied with how phasing (used to) works and can't see the forest for the trees.

    Leaving play and entering play are different effects, but all that matters is that one permanent is leaving the "in-play" zone and moving to another. Surely you don't argue this :eek:

    What is the definition of "leaves play" abilities? They trigger when a permanent leaves the "in-play" zone. Not the graveyard zone, not the in-hand zone, just the "in play zone".

    What is the definition of CIP abilities? They trigger when a permanent enters the in-play zone. Not the graveyard zone, not the in-hand zone, just the in-play zone.

    Phasing: Leaves the "in-play zone" and moves to the "phasing zone". Currently triggers leaves play abilities. Why? Because it's leaving the "in-play zone".

    At the beginning of next upkeep, permanent moves from "phasing zone" to "in play zone". Doesn't matter if it's the only zone to have this trait - that's irrelevant. Should trigger CIP abilities because it's coming into the "in-play" zone. But doesn't.

    It's all a matter of moving between zones and being consistent. I still can't see why YOU can't see that. All that matters is that something is leaving the "in play zone" and coming back into it. If you want to think of phasing's special trait of automatically coming back in next upkeep as what makes it different now in that it no longer triggers abilities, that's fine. But that part is really irrelevant. There is no fundamental difference in the phasing zone, which is my point. It's just not part of the "in-play" zone.
  7. orgg Administrator

    At one point, remember, when Phasing came out, anything that wasn't untap-related that happened during the Untap step was ignored. Thank Tom Wylie for that oddity-- and for Phasing's 'leaves but doesn't CIP' portion.

    While I regret the change, I hope this means they'll be more willing to change old abilities, now. How would you like Rampage erratta'd to be the 'NU-Rampage,' making all of the older Rampagers simi-playable?
  8. Mooseman Isengar Tussle

    Phasing is different from all other types of moving from one zone to another in the fact that the card "remembers" everything about itself when moving to/from the phasing zone.
    The new rules do clear up the inconsistency in the CIP/LP effects, since permenents don't "leave" or "come in to " play, they phase in/out. This may seem trivial, but in the MTG rules, this type of template is very important.
    Banding is another rule that I like, but could use "cleaned up"....
  9. Oversoul The Tentacled One

    I really don't care about phasing that much. Like I said, I don't particularly use phasing. I'm not tied to anything. My only concern is that it seems sad that they would change a rule in a way that has probably no effect on tournament play of any sort, but destroys a handful of casual decks. If there is indeed some benefit to another deck that this change creates, it's true that I've missed it somehow, but I don't think that's not seeing the forest for the trees. No one has provided an example of such a deck. So far, the arguments in favor of the change have been pretty much that phasing was "inconsistent" before. How do you measure consistency? One could poke at virtually any aspect of the game and eventually find something "inconsistent" about it.

    All that matters is that one permanent is leaving the in-play zone and moving to another? All that matters about what? It's kind of hard for me to "argue" something when it's so vague.

    Yeah.

    Yes again.

    I thought it was the "phased-out zone." But whatever.

    If you think phasing should trigger CIP abilities (which I think would be a very bad idea), then this change isn't what you wanted at all.

    Huh? Why do some things "matter" while others don't? Phasing in/out doesn't happen in the upkeep. I notice that I actually used "upkeep" in my post, so it's probably my post that caused you to make the same mistake. What is a "fundamental difference"?
  10. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    I don't remember that. I would have thought they still would have put the CIP effects in the upkeep step even though phasing happened in the Untap step. I think that's how the cantrips from Ice Age worked - you didn't draw the extra card until the pkeep step, even though the card said "At the beginning of next turn, draw a card". Am I mis-remembering that too?

    And what's the new rampage? I thought the old rampage worked well enough...

    To me, a "handful of casual decks" doesn't seem like a good reason either. Certainly not one that should hold back this change.

    I'm not sure how absolute this "consistency" has to be for you. Right now, it works one way and not the other. In the future, it won't work either way. That seems pretty consistent to me. Yeah, you can look at the whole game and find more inconsistencies and perhaps they ought to be cleaned up too.

    "All that matters" meaning why you should look at how a permanent behaves when leaving a zone when trying to justify whether phasing ought to work for one way and not the other, as you were previously seemingly doing. It's not vague at all.

    You've got to be kidding again. You're nit-picking what the exact name of the zone is? Geez, I sure hope I have the rest of the names of the other zones right (I guess I do since you didn't comment on that, what a relief) :rolleyes:

    I think it should have been all or nothing. And (like I stated before) I agree that having all would pose more problems than having nothing.

    It was your usage of upkeep that caused me to make the same mistake.

    Let me ask you this: How the heck does having phasing occur only whenever it occurs matter when talking about LP/CIP effects?

    The "fundamental difference" would be if by any characteristic, a zone would cause a permanent to behave differently when leaving or coming in play than any other zones. Mooseman gave a pretty good example: that permanents retain their memory when moving between zones as opposed to other zones like the graveyard or removed-from-play. Which in my mind further bolsters the argument for having LP/CIP effects not trigger, like he says...
  11. Oversoul The Tentacled One

    If you aren't mis-remembering it, I am. I remember the Ice Age cantrips saying "next turn's upkeep." However, it's been a while since I picked one up and looked at it, so I can't be positive.

    Same here, although I thought phasing worked well enough, so clearly I am blind to all the awesome rules changes that we could possibly throw into the game.

    To me, a minor reason not to change something should be more important than trying to enforce "consistency" when phasing is pretty much inherently inconsistent. But I suppose if I point out inconsistencies that weren't removed by the rules change, I'll be "nit-picking."

    "This consistency" isn't for me at all. Like I said, I consider the rules change to be a bad idea. "Cleaning up" more things that aren't problematic is the last thing I want to happen.

    While I disagree that the statement I referred to as vague in my las post was not vague actually vague, your statement here doesn't even make sense. I'm not saying it has to be the very model of clarity, but I've read it three times now and I'm still left scratching my head.

    No. Why must I be kidding about everything? I seriously thought it was called the "phased out" zone. My memory could be faulty. Or perhaps they changed it. It isn't that important, which was why I said, "whatever."

    And I don't think it's important that phasing out and phasing in behave in the same way, since they are completely different actions. They both occur on permanents with phasing, but I never considered this enough to merit a rules change.

    Yeah, I figured as much.

    It is different from something simply being removed from the game. Because it is not the same as other actions, it need not behave in the same way. It has worked in practice (phasing has been around for a while, after all) and isn't confusing to anyone who actually reads how phasing works. This is why I say it was not problematic before.

    How does it bolster it?
  12. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    How is phasing inherently inconsistent?

    So what's confusing about it?

    It's so unimportant, I'm a bit flabbergasted why you even chose to mention it. It's such an unimportant detail in this discussion.

    Um, why are they different actions again?

    How is not the same as other actions? I never said phasing was confusing, I said it was inconsistent and probably inferred illogical. And hey, what do you know, someone will read phasing the new way and probably find it will be "less confusing".

    Because that was a specific example of how a permanent might behave differently in the "phasing zone" (or going to and fro) than from any other zone. If a permanent retains a memory, it could be argued that LP/CIP shouldn't apply to it as when a permanent leaves/enters other zones.
  13. orgg Administrator

    NU-Rampage is what things like Elvish Berserker have. For each blocking creature, get +X/+X, instead of for each blocker beyond the first. I've actually met many people who didn't know how rampage worked, and asked why they stopped keywording it.

    They're always supprised at the answer. Most get confused, too...
  14. Oversoul The Tentacled One

    It's different from any other action in the game. When I make something phase out, in addition to maintaining its memory (so to speak) and (now) having leaves play abilities left untriggered, the permanent that I make phase out will automatically phase in at the beginning of its controller's next untap phase. Other abilities that remove things from the game do not do these things.

    So when phasing out and phasing in become more consistent with each other, they become less consistent with other actions in the game? Or so it would appear. But neither inconsistency seems particularly problematic.

    Your statement? Like I said, I read it three times and was left scratching my head. I can't make heads or tails of it.

    Flabbergasted? Come on. If I am indeed right about the name of the zone, then fine. Like I said: whatever. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know. Apparently there is something ridiculous about even bringing it up (despite dealing directly with phasing, which is the focus of this discussion).

    Now I think YOU are kidding. They have always been different actions. With one, a permanent is leaving the game entirely, with the other, it's returning to the game. Why are you asking this? Don't you think it's rather obvious?

    I didn't say you called it confusing. "Confusing" is something potentially problematic in this game. "Inconsistent" is not. If phasing was "not confusing" (which is what I've maintained) before, it can't be "less confusing" through this rules change. If a lot of players are having trouble understanding phasing, or remember which action triggers abilities (phasing in or phasing out) then confusion is evident. Inconsistency shows up pretty much wherever you look for it. Logic might be a good measure of whether a rule needs to be changed, but Magic has probably always had tons of logical gaps, and going around trying to apply logic to everything in the game might itself be problematic. In any case, if you only "might have inferred illogical" I can't be sure whether you want to discuss the change on the basis of logic or not...

    Yeah, I can see that being argued. Is that what you are arguing?
  15. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    orgg: What IS the answer?

    Well, we're going to keep banging our heads against this one. I see what you're saying but apparently you're not seeing what I'm saying.

    What you're saying is a step above the fundamental rule behavior of what I'm trying to get at. It's the characteristics of phasing itself. What the rule change is addressing is below that, of what happens when a permanent moves from zone to zone. You already agreed about what the definitions of LP and CIP abilities are. So why shouldn't permanents that phase follow the same rules when they leave the zones, no matter what they are?

    I don't see what's confusing about it. I stated it above: all permanents should behave the same when moving from zone to zone. If there's a "special" characteristic about that zone like retaining memory, then it could be argued the a permanent might behave differently when moving. In which case the behavior should be still be consistent when moving between zones (and in phasing's cae, it looks like the behavior will be that it will not trigger LP/CIP abilities. Other zones which might spring up in the future might still trigger these abilities).

    Indeed, flabbergasted. Is it really THAT important to get the exact name of the phasing zone in this discussion? I could see where it would matter if there were two or more "phasing" zones and we needed to distinguish between them, but we all know that there's only one and there's no confusion. Bringing up the exact name of the zone right now is just anal.

    <sigh> Yes, they are different actions in that respect, which I already agreed with way back when, but I'm trying to get at why YOU think a permanent should trigger LP when leaving a zone and not CIP when entering it. You already agreed on the definition on LP/CIP before, so why is phasing different? Let me restate: phasing out --> leaves the in-play zone --> triggers LP abilities. Phasing in --> enters the in-play zone --> should trigger CIP abilities. Why is the last so difficult to reconcile for you?

    All right, inconsistency leads to confusion. If a player comes upon phasing and reads that it triggers LP abilities, logically he would think it should trigger CIP abilities as well. There would be no reason to think why phasing would be inconsistent until he read the minutae rules on it. Phasing might not be confusing to you personally, but I'm not sure how you might be able to speak on behalf of the thousands of Magic players in the world.

    I'm arguing that it strengthens the case for phasing to behave differently with respect to LP/CIP abilities; that it makes more sense for phasing NOT to trigger LP/CIP abilities. I think personally I would have liked it to behave like all other zones and do trigger them, but as we all know, having phasing work with CIP abilities makes everything much more difficult. So having no abilities work is the second best. Having it work one way and not the other as it is currently is the LEAST desirable.
  16. orgg Administrator

    What's the answer to what? How many people thought Rampage worked like Elvish Berserker? About eight.

    Oversoul,

  17. Oversoul The Tentacled One

    Going from the in-play zone to the phased-out zone and going from the phased-out zone to the in-play zone are not the same action, as I've said a few times now. Permanents that go from in-play zone to the graveyard zone don't always do the same thing as permanents going from the graveyard zone to the in-play zone. And none of these zone changes needs to be a model for the other ones. Unless there is a problem, I see no reason not to stick with what was originally established for interactions between one zone and another. That's been my take on this issue the entire time. I don't see the old way of handling phasing out as problematic. If there is a problem, and it has not yet been brought to my attention, then obviously I would be wise to rethink my position.

    The phased-out zone was one that permanents could leave by phasing in, an action which would bring them into play but would not trigger CIP abilities. Permanents could enter the phased-out zone by phasing out. With the rules change, permanents would be removed from play and also not have leaves play abilities triggered. Both are equally valid functionally, with the change being that leaves play abilities can no longer be exploited through the use of phasing out: a sad loss for casual players, but thankfully only a very small one (I won't argue that it's worse because it sets a precedent, because that's not the issue at hand and I don't really believe it's setting a precedent anyway).

    You say that they "should" be the same. Why should they? Leaving a zone and entering it are not the same. The in-play zone and the phased-out zone are not the same. You aren't demonstrating any need for this rules change.

    I don't believe my one-line correction inferred that I attached import to the name of the zone (especially when I ended it with "whatever" and didn't even bother to look up which one of us was right). I'm not even bringing the name of the zone up "right now." You are. I originally brought it up as you repeatedly used a name for it that I thought wasn't the right one. I reasoned that you really thought the name was the "phasing zone" and informed you that I believed it was not. It's rather consistent with my behavior. If this very minor issue is a big problem for you--well, I don't know what to say. I guess that's really too bad.

    I thought we'd both already agreed that phasing in should NOT trigger CIP abilities. Well, if not, allow me to state now that I think having phasing in trigger CIP abilities would have been a much worse decision than the current rules change, or leaving it the old way, for that matter.

    Inconsistency does not necessarily lead to confusion. I cannot speak on behalf of thousands of Magic players worldwide. But if there is evidence that a large number of players have found phasing confusing after having read the rules on it, then that is a reason to attempt to make it less confusing. Maybe having phasing out no longer trigger LP abilities would do this. Maybe it wouldn't. I don't know. Since I don't find it at all confusing, I can't say exactly how phasing would confuse players. But so far I've missed out on any evidence that the old way of phasing out was considered confusing. You've said you "...never said phasing was confusing, I said it was inconsistent and probably inferred illogical." That doesn't really even tell me if you think it's confusing or not. The only article I've seen on this (admittedly, I haven't looked for others) didn't say the change was being done for the reason of confusion. Randy Buehler referred to it as not making sense and counterintuitive, but he didn't say it was confusing.

    You rank having phasing in/out trigger CIP/LP abilities above the other two? Aside from warping tons of card interactions (for example, make a card with fading phase out, and since it retains its memory, it keeps the fade counters, then when it phases in it gets a new set of them), this destroys what I think was the whole flavor behind phasing in the first place. The current rules change leaves it pretty much preserved, and seems like heaven compared to what you suggest.
  18. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Arggg. I know they're not the "same action". But they don't have to be. Permanents going from the in-play zone to the graveyard trigger LP effects, just as permanents going from the graveyard to the in-play zone trigger CIP effects. Those aren't the same actions either, yet it's consistent of what occurs when a permanent leaves the in-play zone or enters it. That's all that matters, as I've been saying for some time now. A permanent could bounce from the in-play zone to the phasing zone to the RFG zone to the library zone and finally back to the in-play zone, which are many actions, yet all that matters in the end is what happens with respect to the in-play zone.

    And yes, behavior between zones should have been the model. Since phasing occurred in about the third year of Magic, that obviously didn't happen, but I strongly believe that if it was introduced today, it would have (except for the retaining memory part - since that's part of phasing, it would have ended up like what it's going to be - no effects trigger).

    And that's MY take on it.

    See above in the first paragraph for a repeat of this argument.

    I read it as a slight import because (and I hope I don't have to tell you this), you don't have to respond to everything another poster says. I certainly don't, if I agree or have nothing else to say about a certain point. To me, the fact that you bothered to throw that in DOES show some import. And yes, it IS consistent with your behavior. Unfortunately.

    We did agree. But only because CIP abilities have been established for many years now. If it could all be done again with the benefit of hindsight, I think it should trigger CIP abilities (which would mean future CIP abilities would not be as they are now probably)

    No it does not. But in this case it can.

    I don't find phasing confusing either, yet I can see how it might confuse players, since I don't presume to know everyone else's mind.

    I think "not making sense" pretty much equals "confusion".

    Again, that would have been the ideal if phasing was done "correctly" (in my mind) way back when it was introduced. Like I have said again, with the current plethora of CIP cards, that is not how it should be handled today.
  19. Oversoul The Tentacled One

    Phasing would have been much less interesting, and much less (for lack of a better word) special. I consider the rules change they did go with to be somewhat unfortunate. But it's much better than letting CIP abilities trigger (especially because that may break some cards).

    Oh cry me a river. :rolleyes:

    Well, the explanation in the interview was pretty short. Perhaps that is why he didn't go into how it doesn't make sense. I don't believe that "not making sense" equals confusion, but I also think phasing makes about as much sense as most other things in the game.

    You seem to have a problem with phasing being an exception. It was an exception to things when it was first introduced. It was probably designed as an exception. If you don't like exceptions, then I can see why you might not like phasing.
  20. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    I'm sorry I conveyed that impression. Phasing was fine, but not great. All things change... and personally I think this is for the better (and I'm guessing you and orgg are on the other side of the fence).

Share This Page