You know, I originally put this in Silver border and/or joke cards instead of New Mirrodin, because I imagined this idea would be too many words in its text to be taken seriously. Now that I've done it, it doesn't look ridiculous. Just a bit on the verge of unplayable. I would have moved it to New Mirrodin and opened a discussion as to whether this card is worth it there... but I can't move or delete the card now. So I guess I'm talking about it here?

Well, given the technology exists, this could be made a lot more readable with: "Living Enchantment +3/+5 defender"

So apart from giving you a copyable token; this is a Wall of Swords that lacks flying but is 1.5 cheaper? Sounds just about playable to me.

The big difference from a Living Weapon-style ability is if you have an Auratog or something else to get rid of the enchantment, you get a serviceable 3/5, rather than a 0/0.

Mmmph, true. Only the defender is on the enchantment. Sneaky usage there.

What role is this card intended to fulfil? My impression is:

1. WW is probably a bit too cheap for a 3/5 defender. I think defenders may normally be costed slightly more expensive that how useful they are, because if everyone has good defenders the board tends to stall. But that's mostly limited intuition, so it could be ok for a rare legendary token?

2. 90% of the time, this would be equivalent to a 3/5 with defender, and I don't think a normal set would bother with the extra complication to make that happen.

3. However, I think I don't "get" what this is for. The idea that you might be able to sacrifice the enchantment, or bounce it and reuse it? But quite possibly a little tweak would make this black-border printable.

Changed from WW to 2W because it probably was too good a defender, and, yeah, that distracts. I expect people to play this aside Demystify... that is part of the point. Unfortunately, that point gets lost behind a wall of text.

The card, oddly, reminds me of Loxodon Peacekeeper in that the card is kind of funky, and possibly fun to play around, but doesn't advertise itself well due to how painful it is to imagine the scenario where you would use it. Who wants to play a Demystify like its an Animate Wall? Well... I would. I find that play to be very funny. I don't think many people share my sense of humor on this subject, and would just read this as if it said "Crap Rare", though.

Maybe this should be a 5/3? Or should I just drop it?

Thank you! That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure.

I think the problem is, the fact that this is an aura when it doesn't obviously need to be strongly hints that you should look for a way to disenchant it, but when you do, all you get is a 3/5, which isn't really worth two cards and four mana.

It's slightly more complicated than that, since disenchant is a card you might well want alternative uses for if your opponent doesn't have any interesting enchantments, or if you have a global enchantment destruction card.

I would either a) find a way to make the "disenchant becomes animate wall" effect more incidental, so it's nice when you notice it b) embrace it, and have a super-awesome creature that comes into play with a token aura that says "can't attack or block" or c) forget it.

Making it a creature with a token aura much more strongly hints the use of this, I think. It's also a bit less wordier, since the creature type, name, and P/T get moved out of the rules-text.

I really like the token aura idea. Any other set and I'd say "Yeah, that sounds better", but New Mirrodin has Ion counters, and I don't want to put things that look like counters on creatures unless they're colored.

Jack's got some excellent points. In the spirit of embracing that this creature is 'supposed' to be Demystified, as opposed to 'doin it for the lolz', I switched it to a 5/3, then gave it trample... something that only works if you get rid of the enchantment (plus, you know, bonus trample for no extra mana). I could make it bigger, but I want it to feel like a Loxodon and a mate for Bolivar's Warhammer (which is where this card spawned from).

That is indeed odd. I think rather than Demystify, I'd play it with Enchantment Alteration / Aura Graft :3 Two cards for a removal spell and a 5/3 trampler!

Like. Also, I'll remember to sneak an Enchantment Alteration clone in the set. ;)

Also, Alex, can I ask you to move this card to New Mirrodin, so I can keep these notes? Now that the card 'feels' good, I'm not so concerned that it reads messy.

Moved. I also tweaked the cardset options for the Silver bordered set so that hopefully people should be able to do that themselves now.

This is bizarre. Also, doesn't it need to gain an Aura subtype?

Yeah, I'm not sure how to deal with that problem. The card doesn't need the Aura subtype, since the subtype doesn't do anything... it's the words 'Enchant Creature' in the body of the card that does the heavy lifting. That being said... it's kind of weird that the card isn't an aura. I could have the card change from an Enchantment to an Enchantment - Aura... but that's even more words on an already overlogged card. I could also just make this an Aura, since, you know, why not? Unfortunately, the reason why is because many players will think you need to enchant it on a creature, then if makes an elephant, then it moves to that elephant. Heck... I wouldn't be surprised if some Johnny thought that this was a cute way to give a creature defender. Enchant their creature, then Rescue your elephant and now the enchantment is stuck. That's not what the card does, but when you get a funny idea like that in your head, it's tough to dislodge it.

So, mostly, I opted for not calling attention to the problem. But when you really think about it, that can also be very confusing. I mean, Alex's great trick with Enchantment Alteration doesn't work, since that card looks for Auras. It doesn't do what you would expect it do do with everycard that seeks to interact with it. Ug. I guess I'm going to have to add Aura to the subtype. Unnexperienced players may play that wrong... but right now, experienced players will make wrong plays based upon assumption.

You probably want to take your cue from Gliding Licid and friends. Haha, which should indicate how dubiously printable this is ;)

Having non-Auras with enchant really doesn't work well in the rules - the rules kinda assume one always goes with the other.

Ugh. Tell me about it. The Licids are a good reference, even if that means that I have to concede that this is as printable as a Licid would be in modern Magic. At least this is only a one shot goofy rare, and not a block mechanic. Sheesh.

Is there a reason this works the way it does? It seems very much like a card made by a designer, for designers. Or maybe for Johnnies. You could produce a similar effect by having Zephinda be a card and enter the battlefield with a reserve counter, and have her make reserve counters give creatures defender.

jm did answer that:

I really like the token aura idea. Any other set and I'd say "Yeah, that sounds better", but New Mirrodin has Ion counters, and I don't want to put things that look like counters on creatures unless they're colored.

Oops, sorry. I scanned the comments, but I guess I missed that. :(