well if thats the case then who cares? if you can achieve the same effect with a different method then just use that. If your trying to impress laymen, they would be just as impressed with a snap change or shapeshifter.
I agree with part of this comment.
I strongly believe that if you're going to build one move up as being the second coming, it should have more to offer than being 'more visual'. It should be as or more practical than exisitng methods, It should have as few angle issues as possible, and it should be impromptu. It should be a move, not a gimmick, to accentuate the last comment.
My thinking on this is due in part to my belief that one good colour change is no more impressive to the lay than another good change. The EGO change is just as good as the Erdnase change, is just as good as a TP change, is just as good as... You get the idea.
Of course, different moves are better in certain contexts, but ultimately it's swings and roundabouts, when it comes to marketing the move to Magic enthusiasts.
However, to say that thing about using a different method if it achieved the same effect, it doesn'treally work that way, for me at least. If change is a move that genuinely looks that clean, I'm in. On the other hand, I wouldn't use a Blink gimmick, simply because It's not a colour change, it's a gimmick. Although I do use gimmicks (I'm the anti-purist in fact, haha), I wouldn't substitute what could be achieved by hard earned sleight of hand chops with a flipper card. Again, another issue for another thread, but my opinion is that a gimmick should be used in conjunction with SoH, not as a replacement!
So, ultimately, to clarify, if it's a move, I'm on board, if it's a gimmick, not my thing. I'm NOT however, casting ill opinion on other peoples use of either method though, I know gimmick cards such as the blink, et al, work for some people. Plus I like Daniel. And I like BURN!
CL