Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity
Mechanics

CardName: Enchant Permanent Cost: Type: Pow/Tgh: / Rules Text: Flavour Text: Set/Rarity: Conversation None

Enchant Permanent
 
 
Updated on 14 Nov 2015 by Jack V

History: [-]

2015-11-12 15:57:17: Jack V created and commented on the card Enchant Permanent

Would it be simpler to remove "enchant creature", etc, assume auras can be played on any permanent, and just say that "enchanted creature does x" has an effect only if it's currently enchanting a creature?

It seems like, they would do about what people would expect, but with less words.

The small minority of auras that have a more specific restriction could have it spelled out, or say "if enchanted creature is X, it has Y". And you'd incidentally remove the clumsy wording with auras which have targeting restrictions only.

Then what about things that don't enchant permanents, such as curses?

That's true, but those are very very much the exception, and they're nearly all curses. Either they could have an except "this may enchant a player", or you could say "auras may target anything that matches all 'enchanted x' on them", or you could errata the exceptions,

  • curses can say "When this enters the battlefield, target player gains control of it"
  • Spellweaver Volute can be an enchantment that exiles the next instant to be cast.
  • Psychic Possession can say "Choose a player"

I think that can be worked round, I'm more worried whether the wording for creatures, or specific types (eg. "enchant island") is ugly, that could prevent it working at all.

Players are stupid. If you can put something like "enchanted creature gets +1/+1" on a land, players will assume the land becomes a 1/1 creature.

Players are stupid. They don't realize that when a land-creature stops becoming a creature that the Enchant Creature is supposed to fall off.

Even if this change was a good idea, I believe it's too late in Magic's life to initiate.

They changed how Auras were written quite a bit when they introduced auras instead of local enchantments: http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/af77

I'm less convinced it's a good idea, but if it is, and it can express all the same functionality, why can't they change?

They changed how they were written, but that didn't affect the functionality of any of the cards-that-became-Auras. I guess it changed cards that cared about Auras a bit, but mostly to make them with the way you'd expect. Your suggestion makes them functionally different and work different than how'd people expect.

It's not so crazy to image this format though:

Holy Strength
­{w}
Enchantment-Aura
If enchanted permanent is a creature, it gets +1/+2.

Sure, there's some extra words in there. But "If... permanent is a" takes marginally less space than "Enchant Creature" with a line break. And it would make all auras functionally simpler.

It wouldn't work well with cards that specifically ask for an Enchant Creature. But it wouldn't be the first time previous cards were altered when a functional change appeared.

The Bonds of Faith treatment could be valid, I suppose. Of course, I feel this is pretty similar to the flash/instant supertype problem.

Add your comments:


(formatting help)
How much damage does this card deal? Searing Wind
(Signed-in users don't get captchas and can edit their comments)