This seems a huge mistake to me. Why they didn't just ban the problem companions is beyond me. Not only is this a huge headache in adding text to the card that does not exist it renders most the companions completely unplayable so is completely pointless. Decks aren't going to pay 7 mana for Umori or 8 mana for Obosh even over 2 turns. And ironically what you're left with is the companion this least effects is Yorion which they may still dominate as a result, so what's the point? They'd have been way better off just banning Yorion and the other problem companions.
This "fix" just ends up annoying casual players/decks everywhere that they can't play the cards as intended, nerfing the flagship mechanic of the last set to the point it's virtually unplayable even in casual. Stuff like this causes a huge hit in consumer confidence, how can you get excited about the new flashy mechanic if they can just nerf it to oblivion a month later?
The thing is yorion by itself is not a problem, the deck depends on teferi, fires and lukka.
So they got rid of fires while teferi will rotate in September.
As for lurrus the extra mana cost will slow down the decks, and give discard one chance to get rid of the companion from hand, which now we don't have.
Maybe gyruda will still see play with this change, or it will be main deck like how I've been using it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"May he who is without mana cast the first spell!"
Check out my Youtube channel where I upload MTG content videos twice a week!
This seems a huge mistake to me. Why they didn't just ban the problem companions is beyond me. Not only is this a huge headache in adding text to the card that does not exist it renders most the companions completely unplayable so is completely pointless. Decks aren't going to pay 7 mana for Umori or 8 mana for Obosh even over 2 turns. And ironically what you're left with is the companion this least effects is Yorion which they may still dominate as a result, so what's the point? They'd have been way better off just banning Yorion and the other problem companions.
This "fix" just ends up annoying casual players/decks everywhere that they can't play the cards as intended, nerfing the flagship mechanic of the last set to the point it's virtually unplayable even in casual. Stuff like this causes a huge hit in consumer confidence, how can you get excited about the new flashy mechanic if they can just nerf it to oblivion a month later?
I fail to see how this is a bad thing. If anything this can be better for companions in the long run. Sure it hoses the initial companions but if they bring the mechanic back, it can open up to some design space that can actually make them playable as a companion. They could have added benefits of playing it as your companion.
I fail to see how this is a bad thing. If anything this can be better for companions in the long run. Sure it hoses the initial companions but if they bring the mechanic back, it can open up to some design space that can actually make them playable as a companion. They could have added benefits of playing it as your companion.
You get the benefit of an extra card.
No matter what thats just plain old +1 card advantage.
If the card itself actually matters in a metagame and within a working strong deck is an entirely different story.
I fail to see how this is a bad thing. If anything this can be better for companions in the long run. Sure it hoses the initial companions but if they bring the mechanic back, it can open up to some design space that can actually make them playable as a companion. They could have added benefits of playing it as your companion.
You get the benefit of an extra card.
No matter what thats just plain old +1 card advantage.
If the card itself actually matters in a metagame and within a working strong deck is an entirely different story.
I was talking about in respect to the errata. If you have to jump through hoops and have to pay an additional cost, it seems much easier to balance than just how it was before. Sure it's pure card advantage but at what cost?
I believe it makes companion an easier mechanic to balance out in the future is all I'm saying.
I was talking about in respect to the errata. If you have to jump through hoops and have to pay an additional cost, it seems much easier to balance than just how it was before. Sure it's pure card advantage but at what cost?
I believe it makes companion an easier mechanic to balance out in the future is all I'm saying.
Oh for sure, its more along the line of other card advantage mechanics, like Clue tokens.
All of it costs a bunch of mana, so you get the extra card, but you invest time and mana to do so.
Companion failed at that, you just got an extra card with benefits even.
Wow. Does that leak put PHASING as a core set mechanic? That's something I was not expecting.
Especially since phasing is a 8 on the storm scale
But its saids ” it's unlikely to return but possible if the stars align” and teferi focused core set is the probably the star's since phasing is his thing During the old magic days
I wonder if this is where we’ll see Oubliette finally return?
Maybe! I feel like any kind of hint that would have applied to this would have been too obvious.
If phasing plays any sort of larger roll in M21 than just Teferi, it’s remotely possible (*remotely*) that they just errata Oubliette to “phase out target creature until [this] leaves play.”
Thst would functionally change Oubliette. Phasing is quite a bit different than what happens when Oubliette exiles a creature.
If phasing plays any sort of larger roll in M21 than just Teferi, it’s remotely possible (*remotely*) that they just errata Oubliette to “phase out target creature until [this] leaves play.”
Thst would functionally change Oubliette. Phasing is quite a bit different than what happens when Oubliette exiles a creature.
Which is true. Currently Oubliette won't interact with Equipment the way Phasing would and it interacts better with things like Doubling Season. If changed to Phasing, you can't remove things forever the way you can now and it doesn't interact with tokens the same way. There are a number of other differences.
However, Wizards (MaRo) has said that the current text simply doesn't fit on a card. Now, they could have found a way to shorten the current text without major changes but that also seems unlikely if they wished not to change functionality. The only real place I can see an omission of current text not changing functionality is the "under its owner's control" text and even that might require a rule change.
So, it is possible that they have simply decided that not being able to reprint the card is worse than changing its functionality is certain cases.
Or, they have either introduced keywords for "leaves the battlefield" and "enters the battlefield" to help shorten the text more. I mean, I don't think it is too much longer than Animate Dead's text and they had said the same thing about that in terms of not being able to be reprinted so a few word changes here or there might make it possible.
I think a bigger reason against Oubliette here is that it is not really in Black's slice of the color pie so it still seems more likely to be in Commander Legends (or whatever it is called).
And it feels like that quote from Thanos: "You could not live with your own failure. Where did that bring you? Back to me."
To prove what I mean, I have attached two images to shows how much cleaner and simpler reverting back to the phasing rules for oubliette would be if it were done as a promo. Left is Phasing (34pt font, 6-lines of rules text, 30 words). Right is what it currently reads as (26pt font, 9-lines of rules text, 74 words).
Oh and for a non-promo version using the two versions, the shorthand of it is:
Phasing (38pt font, 6-lines of rules text, 30 words)
Standard (29pt font, 10-lines of rules text, 74 words)
And it feels like that quote from Thanos: "You could not live with your own failure. Where did that bring you? Back to me."
To prove what I mean, I have attached two images to shows how much cleaner and simpler reverting back to the phasing rules for oubliette would be. Left is Phasing (34pt font, 30 words). Right is what it currently reads as (26pt font, 74 words).
Decided to also include the word count to demonstrate the stark difference.
That seems like an argument for *not* using Phasing though. If they did it once, and then reverted it because it changed it too much, then why would they do it again? This is a situation where they already tried the proposed solution and didn't like it.
Also, as pointed out, that still creates a number of functional differences which might change the card too much to be acceptable.
And it feels like that quote from Thanos: "You could not live with your own failure. Where did that bring you? Back to me."
To prove what I mean, I have attached two images to shows how much cleaner and simpler reverting back to the phasing rules for oubliette would be. Left is Phasing (34pt font, 30 words). Right is what it currently reads as (26pt font, 74 words).
Decided to also include the word count to demonstrate the stark difference.
That seems like an argument for *not* using Phasing though. If they did it once, and then reverted it because it changed it too much, then why would they do it again? This is a situation where they already tried the proposed solution and didn't like it.
Also, as pointed out, that still creates a number of functional differences which might change the card too much to be acceptable.
If wizards is saying its wordy and the text doesn't fit, that means they are not going below a font threshold, most likely in the 30 to 34 font range. Sure the difference is phasing takes the equipment as well, but that also means that most of the rules are hard baked into the mechanic of phasing itself. Can't even permanently phase out something like you could with the O-Ring trick as it automatically will phase in during the controller's next untap anyway.
After all, Flicker and the O-Ring variants are just cut from the same cloth as Phasing for that is what Phasing used to do.
Assuming 2007 when they reverted back Oubilette's wording is when they kept trying to find a better way to say the same thing, and 13 years later, they haven't found it, it may just be safe to go with the phasing variant and call it a day.
And it feels like that quote from Thanos: "You could not live with your own failure. Where did that bring you? Back to me."
To prove what I mean, I have attached two images to shows how much cleaner and simpler reverting back to the phasing rules for oubliette would be. Left is Phasing (34pt font, 30 words). Right is what it currently reads as (26pt font, 74 words).
Decided to also include the word count to demonstrate the stark difference.
That seems like an argument for *not* using Phasing though. If they did it once, and then reverted it because it changed it too much, then why would they do it again? This is a situation where they already tried the proposed solution and didn't like it.
Also, as pointed out, that still creates a number of functional differences which might change the card too much to be acceptable.
I feel like the changes in functionality are actually more positive, if anything. What would you consider to be unacceptable?
Can't even permanently phase out something like you could with the O-Ring trick as it automatically will phase in during the controller's next untap anyway.
That seems to be enough of a difference though. I mean, you can exile them permanently now; Phasing stops that.
Granted, the card is mostly used in Pauper and I don't know if that "trick" is used too often, but it is still a change.
I feel like the changes in functionality are actually more positive, if anything. What would you consider to be unacceptable?
To be clear, I don't think anything with the changes is unacceptable. My comment was about what Wizards might find unacceptable. So, I have no idea if they would or not. So, perhaps overall they are more positive.
I suppose the aforementioned loss of the "exile" trick might be one. The fact that it doesn't get rid of tokens anymore or that it doesn't work with equipment the same way (this might be more of an issue since I know there are certain equipment used in Pauper). I would probably lean on that one as a bigger issue but who is to say really.
If I have to choose just one change that I think is enough of a difference it is the loss of ETB triggers. I don't know if it is a big enough difference but it seems like it would be the most common thing most people would see as being different.
Also, as a final thought: I am not against this change. I am simply expanding on the thought of it being a significant change which Wizards generally doesn't like doing. For 1 card, and the reason being to make it so it can be printed, they might be willing to do so. I don't know.
This "fix" just ends up annoying casual players/decks everywhere that they can't play the cards as intended, nerfing the flagship mechanic of the last set to the point it's virtually unplayable even in casual. Stuff like this causes a huge hit in consumer confidence, how can you get excited about the new flashy mechanic if they can just nerf it to oblivion a month later?
So they got rid of fires while teferi will rotate in September.
As for lurrus the extra mana cost will slow down the decks, and give discard one chance to get rid of the companion from hand, which now we don't have.
Maybe gyruda will still see play with this change, or it will be main deck like how I've been using it.
Check out my Youtube channel where I upload MTG content videos twice a week!
Mtg Lifestyle
I fail to see how this is a bad thing. If anything this can be better for companions in the long run. Sure it hoses the initial companions but if they bring the mechanic back, it can open up to some design space that can actually make them playable as a companion. They could have added benefits of playing it as your companion.
You get the benefit of an extra card.
No matter what thats just plain old +1 card advantage.
If the card itself actually matters in a metagame and within a working strong deck is an entirely different story.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
I was talking about in respect to the errata. If you have to jump through hoops and have to pay an additional cost, it seems much easier to balance than just how it was before. Sure it's pure card advantage but at what cost?
I believe it makes companion an easier mechanic to balance out in the future is all I'm saying.
Oh for sure, its more along the line of other card advantage mechanics, like Clue tokens.
All of it costs a bunch of mana, so you get the extra card, but you invest time and mana to do so.
Companion failed at that, you just got an extra card with benefits even.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
Lutri, the Spellchaser as companion because deck already fulfills condition.
pay 3 to put it into hand, later pitch it for Force of Will or Force of Negation.
Thst would functionally change Oubliette. Phasing is quite a bit different than what happens when Oubliette exiles a creature.
However, Wizards (MaRo) has said that the current text simply doesn't fit on a card. Now, they could have found a way to shorten the current text without major changes but that also seems unlikely if they wished not to change functionality. The only real place I can see an omission of current text not changing functionality is the "under its owner's control" text and even that might require a rule change.
So, it is possible that they have simply decided that not being able to reprint the card is worse than changing its functionality is certain cases.
Or, they have either introduced keywords for "leaves the battlefield" and "enters the battlefield" to help shorten the text more. I mean, I don't think it is too much longer than Animate Dead's text and they had said the same thing about that in terms of not being able to be reprinted so a few word changes here or there might make it possible.
I think a bigger reason against Oubliette here is that it is not really in Black's slice of the color pie so it still seems more likely to be in Commander Legends (or whatever it is called).
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/phasing-rescue-2005-02-21
And it feels like that quote from Thanos: "You could not live with your own failure. Where did that bring you? Back to me."
To prove what I mean, I have attached two images to shows how much cleaner and simpler reverting back to the phasing rules for oubliette would be if it were done as a promo. Left is Phasing (34pt font, 6-lines of rules text, 30 words). Right is what it currently reads as (26pt font, 9-lines of rules text, 74 words).
Oh and for a non-promo version using the two versions, the shorthand of it is:
Phasing (38pt font, 6-lines of rules text, 30 words)
Standard (29pt font, 10-lines of rules text, 74 words)
Also, as pointed out, that still creates a number of functional differences which might change the card too much to be acceptable.
After all, Flicker and the O-Ring variants are just cut from the same cloth as Phasing for that is what Phasing used to do.
Assuming 2007 when they reverted back Oubilette's wording is when they kept trying to find a better way to say the same thing, and 13 years later, they haven't found it, it may just be safe to go with the phasing variant and call it a day.
I feel like the changes in functionality are actually more positive, if anything. What would you consider to be unacceptable?
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
Granted, the card is mostly used in Pauper and I don't know if that "trick" is used too often, but it is still a change. To be clear, I don't think anything with the changes is unacceptable. My comment was about what Wizards might find unacceptable. So, I have no idea if they would or not. So, perhaps overall they are more positive.
I suppose the aforementioned loss of the "exile" trick might be one. The fact that it doesn't get rid of tokens anymore or that it doesn't work with equipment the same way (this might be more of an issue since I know there are certain equipment used in Pauper). I would probably lean on that one as a bigger issue but who is to say really.
If I have to choose just one change that I think is enough of a difference it is the loss of ETB triggers. I don't know if it is a big enough difference but it seems like it would be the most common thing most people would see as being different.
Also, as a final thought: I am not against this change. I am simply expanding on the thought of it being a significant change which Wizards generally doesn't like doing. For 1 card, and the reason being to make it so it can be printed, they might be willing to do so. I don't know.