Is there a reason effects that introduce another combat phase also create another main phase?Does “prevent all damage to target creature” save the other creatures in a gang block?Do creatures that enter the battlefield at the same time see each other enter?Is it possible to counter cards that boost a creatures power during the combat phase?Do effects that reduce a spell's casting cost also reduce its converted mana cost?Do effects that remove abilities also remove counters?How does Hour of Devastation's Neheb the Eternal work with extra combat & main phases?Is there a term for defensive effects that only/primarily function for attacking creatures?Can I cast spells right before the end of my opponent's second main phase?Can you give an example why the active player wants to have priority in Beginning of Combat first?Why doesn't Djinn of Wishes let me play a land on my opponent's turn?

Is there any reason to change the ISO manually?

What drugs were used in England during the High Middle Ages?

How do I stop making people jump at home and at work?

Shoes for commuting

How could a planet have one hemisphere way warmer than the other without the planet being tidally locked?

Which costing factors go into the optimizer choosing different types of spools?

Bidirectional Dictionary

Is Sanskrit really the mother of all languages?

Was Rosie the Riveter sourced from a Michelangelo painting?

Is the interior of a Bag of Holding actually an extradimensional space?

Why is a pressure canner needed when canning?

How can I oppose my advisor granting gift authorship to a collaborator?

What's the point of this macro?

Tying double knot of garbarge bag

What quests do you need to stop at before you make an enemy of a faction for each faction?

What's the difference between a share and a stock?

How do German speakers decide what should be on the left side of the verb?

If magnetic force can't do any work, then how can we define a potential?

Draw the ☣ (Biohazard Symbol)

Why are all volatile liquids combustible

What fraction of 2x2 USA call signs are vanity calls?

Was "The Hobbit" ever abridged?

How quickly would a wooden treasure chest rot?

Identifying the following distribution



Is there a reason effects that introduce another combat phase also create another main phase?


Does “prevent all damage to target creature” save the other creatures in a gang block?Do creatures that enter the battlefield at the same time see each other enter?Is it possible to counter cards that boost a creatures power during the combat phase?Do effects that reduce a spell's casting cost also reduce its converted mana cost?Do effects that remove abilities also remove counters?How does Hour of Devastation's Neheb the Eternal work with extra combat & main phases?Is there a term for defensive effects that only/primarily function for attacking creatures?Can I cast spells right before the end of my opponent's second main phase?Can you give an example why the active player wants to have priority in Beginning of Combat first?Why doesn't Djinn of Wishes let me play a land on my opponent's turn?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








3















In Magic, there are a number of effects that create an additional combat phase. In any example I've seen, they either also create an additional main phase, or else they can only be cast/activated during combat (meaning the additional combat phase will happen, followed by the next main phase). Is there a reason for this? (Besides the reason of: the game designers designed it that way)



A different way of phrasing my question could be: would something hinder the game from continuing if an effect caused combat to not be followed by a main phase? (For example, Precombat Main Phase -> Combat -> Postcombat Main Phase -> Additional Combat -> End Step)



If not, has any justification been given for the apparent design rule that a main phase should always happen before the End Step?










share|improve this question
























  • I guess they don't want that the structure of a turn changes. Don't know the real reasons, though.

    – Aulis Ronkainen
    9 hours ago






  • 1





    There's lots of reasons to cast stuff after combat. Being denied that opportunity would be a significant disadvantage.

    – ikegami
    8 hours ago












  • Agreed. Given that, it seems like that could be a useful tool in lowering the power of a card that gives additional combat. It just seems odd that it's a tool WotC has never used. I wasn't sure if there was some rules-dependent reason.

    – Aetherfox
    8 hours ago

















3















In Magic, there are a number of effects that create an additional combat phase. In any example I've seen, they either also create an additional main phase, or else they can only be cast/activated during combat (meaning the additional combat phase will happen, followed by the next main phase). Is there a reason for this? (Besides the reason of: the game designers designed it that way)



A different way of phrasing my question could be: would something hinder the game from continuing if an effect caused combat to not be followed by a main phase? (For example, Precombat Main Phase -> Combat -> Postcombat Main Phase -> Additional Combat -> End Step)



If not, has any justification been given for the apparent design rule that a main phase should always happen before the End Step?










share|improve this question
























  • I guess they don't want that the structure of a turn changes. Don't know the real reasons, though.

    – Aulis Ronkainen
    9 hours ago






  • 1





    There's lots of reasons to cast stuff after combat. Being denied that opportunity would be a significant disadvantage.

    – ikegami
    8 hours ago












  • Agreed. Given that, it seems like that could be a useful tool in lowering the power of a card that gives additional combat. It just seems odd that it's a tool WotC has never used. I wasn't sure if there was some rules-dependent reason.

    – Aetherfox
    8 hours ago













3












3








3








In Magic, there are a number of effects that create an additional combat phase. In any example I've seen, they either also create an additional main phase, or else they can only be cast/activated during combat (meaning the additional combat phase will happen, followed by the next main phase). Is there a reason for this? (Besides the reason of: the game designers designed it that way)



A different way of phrasing my question could be: would something hinder the game from continuing if an effect caused combat to not be followed by a main phase? (For example, Precombat Main Phase -> Combat -> Postcombat Main Phase -> Additional Combat -> End Step)



If not, has any justification been given for the apparent design rule that a main phase should always happen before the End Step?










share|improve this question














In Magic, there are a number of effects that create an additional combat phase. In any example I've seen, they either also create an additional main phase, or else they can only be cast/activated during combat (meaning the additional combat phase will happen, followed by the next main phase). Is there a reason for this? (Besides the reason of: the game designers designed it that way)



A different way of phrasing my question could be: would something hinder the game from continuing if an effect caused combat to not be followed by a main phase? (For example, Precombat Main Phase -> Combat -> Postcombat Main Phase -> Additional Combat -> End Step)



If not, has any justification been given for the apparent design rule that a main phase should always happen before the End Step?







magic-the-gathering






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 9 hours ago









AetherfoxAetherfox

6621 silver badge13 bronze badges




6621 silver badge13 bronze badges















  • I guess they don't want that the structure of a turn changes. Don't know the real reasons, though.

    – Aulis Ronkainen
    9 hours ago






  • 1





    There's lots of reasons to cast stuff after combat. Being denied that opportunity would be a significant disadvantage.

    – ikegami
    8 hours ago












  • Agreed. Given that, it seems like that could be a useful tool in lowering the power of a card that gives additional combat. It just seems odd that it's a tool WotC has never used. I wasn't sure if there was some rules-dependent reason.

    – Aetherfox
    8 hours ago

















  • I guess they don't want that the structure of a turn changes. Don't know the real reasons, though.

    – Aulis Ronkainen
    9 hours ago






  • 1





    There's lots of reasons to cast stuff after combat. Being denied that opportunity would be a significant disadvantage.

    – ikegami
    8 hours ago












  • Agreed. Given that, it seems like that could be a useful tool in lowering the power of a card that gives additional combat. It just seems odd that it's a tool WotC has never used. I wasn't sure if there was some rules-dependent reason.

    – Aetherfox
    8 hours ago
















I guess they don't want that the structure of a turn changes. Don't know the real reasons, though.

– Aulis Ronkainen
9 hours ago





I guess they don't want that the structure of a turn changes. Don't know the real reasons, though.

– Aulis Ronkainen
9 hours ago




1




1





There's lots of reasons to cast stuff after combat. Being denied that opportunity would be a significant disadvantage.

– ikegami
8 hours ago






There's lots of reasons to cast stuff after combat. Being denied that opportunity would be a significant disadvantage.

– ikegami
8 hours ago














Agreed. Given that, it seems like that could be a useful tool in lowering the power of a card that gives additional combat. It just seems odd that it's a tool WotC has never used. I wasn't sure if there was some rules-dependent reason.

– Aetherfox
8 hours ago





Agreed. Given that, it seems like that could be a useful tool in lowering the power of a card that gives additional combat. It just seems odd that it's a tool WotC has never used. I wasn't sure if there was some rules-dependent reason.

– Aetherfox
8 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















4
















The rules do not require the cards to be written that way, or in general for the final combat phase to be followed by a main phase. The card Fatespinner, for example, can cause players to skip main phases, and go directly from the draw step to combat to the end step.



That implies that there are other reasons that these cards are consistently written this way. The simplest explanation is that having a final main phase to allow the active player to cast post combat spells is an important aspect of the turn structure that Wizards wants to preserve when granting players additional combat phases.






share|improve this answer
































    3
















    No, there is nothing preventing this from a rules perspective. Maintaining the flow of the turn (as murgatroid99 mentioned) is probably why this template has been preserved over time, but the origin of this template comes from the fact that the early rules of the game did not support such a turn structure.



    Up through 5th Edition, combat did not have its own phase. "Attacking" was an optional action that you could enter during your Main Phase. Entering combat was essentially a special action a player could choose to take like playing a land. As such, combat was wholly contained within a singular Main Phase, and combat was not standalone. The very first card to do this kind of effect was Relentless Assault from Visions. The relevant part of the original text was this:




    You may declare an additional attack during your main phase this turn.




    So this automatically functioned the way it does today since every combat happened within a Main Phase and would kick you back out to the Main Phase when they were complete. When combat was promoted to its own phase in the Sixth Edition rules update and split up the Main Phase to pre- and postcombat, the card received a new printing with wording that would allow it to function the same under the new rules:




    You get an additional combat phase followed by an additional main phase this turn.




    After that, this kind of wording became the standard for effects that create additional combats in the turn. Wizards tends to normalize templates for effects that are used on multiple cards so that players don't have to remember the slight differences between the different implementations, and this has been the basis for templating this particular effect from that point onward.






    share|improve this answer



























      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "147"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fboardgames.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f48527%2fis-there-a-reason-effects-that-introduce-another-combat-phase-also-create-anothe%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      4
















      The rules do not require the cards to be written that way, or in general for the final combat phase to be followed by a main phase. The card Fatespinner, for example, can cause players to skip main phases, and go directly from the draw step to combat to the end step.



      That implies that there are other reasons that these cards are consistently written this way. The simplest explanation is that having a final main phase to allow the active player to cast post combat spells is an important aspect of the turn structure that Wizards wants to preserve when granting players additional combat phases.






      share|improve this answer





























        4
















        The rules do not require the cards to be written that way, or in general for the final combat phase to be followed by a main phase. The card Fatespinner, for example, can cause players to skip main phases, and go directly from the draw step to combat to the end step.



        That implies that there are other reasons that these cards are consistently written this way. The simplest explanation is that having a final main phase to allow the active player to cast post combat spells is an important aspect of the turn structure that Wizards wants to preserve when granting players additional combat phases.






        share|improve this answer



























          4














          4










          4









          The rules do not require the cards to be written that way, or in general for the final combat phase to be followed by a main phase. The card Fatespinner, for example, can cause players to skip main phases, and go directly from the draw step to combat to the end step.



          That implies that there are other reasons that these cards are consistently written this way. The simplest explanation is that having a final main phase to allow the active player to cast post combat spells is an important aspect of the turn structure that Wizards wants to preserve when granting players additional combat phases.






          share|improve this answer













          The rules do not require the cards to be written that way, or in general for the final combat phase to be followed by a main phase. The card Fatespinner, for example, can cause players to skip main phases, and go directly from the draw step to combat to the end step.



          That implies that there are other reasons that these cards are consistently written this way. The simplest explanation is that having a final main phase to allow the active player to cast post combat spells is an important aspect of the turn structure that Wizards wants to preserve when granting players additional combat phases.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 8 hours ago









          murgatroid99murgatroid99

          52.3k8 gold badges134 silver badges219 bronze badges




          52.3k8 gold badges134 silver badges219 bronze badges


























              3
















              No, there is nothing preventing this from a rules perspective. Maintaining the flow of the turn (as murgatroid99 mentioned) is probably why this template has been preserved over time, but the origin of this template comes from the fact that the early rules of the game did not support such a turn structure.



              Up through 5th Edition, combat did not have its own phase. "Attacking" was an optional action that you could enter during your Main Phase. Entering combat was essentially a special action a player could choose to take like playing a land. As such, combat was wholly contained within a singular Main Phase, and combat was not standalone. The very first card to do this kind of effect was Relentless Assault from Visions. The relevant part of the original text was this:




              You may declare an additional attack during your main phase this turn.




              So this automatically functioned the way it does today since every combat happened within a Main Phase and would kick you back out to the Main Phase when they were complete. When combat was promoted to its own phase in the Sixth Edition rules update and split up the Main Phase to pre- and postcombat, the card received a new printing with wording that would allow it to function the same under the new rules:




              You get an additional combat phase followed by an additional main phase this turn.




              After that, this kind of wording became the standard for effects that create additional combats in the turn. Wizards tends to normalize templates for effects that are used on multiple cards so that players don't have to remember the slight differences between the different implementations, and this has been the basis for templating this particular effect from that point onward.






              share|improve this answer





























                3
















                No, there is nothing preventing this from a rules perspective. Maintaining the flow of the turn (as murgatroid99 mentioned) is probably why this template has been preserved over time, but the origin of this template comes from the fact that the early rules of the game did not support such a turn structure.



                Up through 5th Edition, combat did not have its own phase. "Attacking" was an optional action that you could enter during your Main Phase. Entering combat was essentially a special action a player could choose to take like playing a land. As such, combat was wholly contained within a singular Main Phase, and combat was not standalone. The very first card to do this kind of effect was Relentless Assault from Visions. The relevant part of the original text was this:




                You may declare an additional attack during your main phase this turn.




                So this automatically functioned the way it does today since every combat happened within a Main Phase and would kick you back out to the Main Phase when they were complete. When combat was promoted to its own phase in the Sixth Edition rules update and split up the Main Phase to pre- and postcombat, the card received a new printing with wording that would allow it to function the same under the new rules:




                You get an additional combat phase followed by an additional main phase this turn.




                After that, this kind of wording became the standard for effects that create additional combats in the turn. Wizards tends to normalize templates for effects that are used on multiple cards so that players don't have to remember the slight differences between the different implementations, and this has been the basis for templating this particular effect from that point onward.






                share|improve this answer



























                  3














                  3










                  3









                  No, there is nothing preventing this from a rules perspective. Maintaining the flow of the turn (as murgatroid99 mentioned) is probably why this template has been preserved over time, but the origin of this template comes from the fact that the early rules of the game did not support such a turn structure.



                  Up through 5th Edition, combat did not have its own phase. "Attacking" was an optional action that you could enter during your Main Phase. Entering combat was essentially a special action a player could choose to take like playing a land. As such, combat was wholly contained within a singular Main Phase, and combat was not standalone. The very first card to do this kind of effect was Relentless Assault from Visions. The relevant part of the original text was this:




                  You may declare an additional attack during your main phase this turn.




                  So this automatically functioned the way it does today since every combat happened within a Main Phase and would kick you back out to the Main Phase when they were complete. When combat was promoted to its own phase in the Sixth Edition rules update and split up the Main Phase to pre- and postcombat, the card received a new printing with wording that would allow it to function the same under the new rules:




                  You get an additional combat phase followed by an additional main phase this turn.




                  After that, this kind of wording became the standard for effects that create additional combats in the turn. Wizards tends to normalize templates for effects that are used on multiple cards so that players don't have to remember the slight differences between the different implementations, and this has been the basis for templating this particular effect from that point onward.






                  share|improve this answer













                  No, there is nothing preventing this from a rules perspective. Maintaining the flow of the turn (as murgatroid99 mentioned) is probably why this template has been preserved over time, but the origin of this template comes from the fact that the early rules of the game did not support such a turn structure.



                  Up through 5th Edition, combat did not have its own phase. "Attacking" was an optional action that you could enter during your Main Phase. Entering combat was essentially a special action a player could choose to take like playing a land. As such, combat was wholly contained within a singular Main Phase, and combat was not standalone. The very first card to do this kind of effect was Relentless Assault from Visions. The relevant part of the original text was this:




                  You may declare an additional attack during your main phase this turn.




                  So this automatically functioned the way it does today since every combat happened within a Main Phase and would kick you back out to the Main Phase when they were complete. When combat was promoted to its own phase in the Sixth Edition rules update and split up the Main Phase to pre- and postcombat, the card received a new printing with wording that would allow it to function the same under the new rules:




                  You get an additional combat phase followed by an additional main phase this turn.




                  After that, this kind of wording became the standard for effects that create additional combats in the turn. Wizards tends to normalize templates for effects that are used on multiple cards so that players don't have to remember the slight differences between the different implementations, and this has been the basis for templating this particular effect from that point onward.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 4 hours ago









                  CALEB FCALEB F

                  762 bronze badges




                  762 bronze badges






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Board & Card Games Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fboardgames.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f48527%2fis-there-a-reason-effects-that-introduce-another-combat-phase-also-create-anothe%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

                      Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

                      Ласкавець круглолистий Зміст Опис | Поширення | Галерея | Примітки | Посилання | Навігаційне меню58171138361-22960890446Bupleurum rotundifoliumEuro+Med PlantbasePlants of the World Online — Kew ScienceGermplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN)Ласкавецькн. VI : Літери Ком — Левиправивши або дописавши її