That's an interesting way to try and make auras viable.

Gut feeling is that I personally wouldn't risk it; but I'm not sure that's the de-factor right decision. So you've probably hit the sweet-spot.

Hm. It's like an Equipment with Equip . The flavour feels like different creatures can "take" this from each other, or a creature can "drop" it onto a land in order to save it for other creatures later.

But it's still got the inherent 2-for-1 possibility of Auras: the sorcery-speed rider (which is a very sensible thing to include, certainly don't remove it) means that the moments when you're likely to lose the enchanted creature are also the moments when you're likely to lose this.

So it's like a halfway house between Equipment and Auras, still carrying the Aura's risk of 2-for-1s but able to move around. I... think I'd rather have it the other way around: something like "When enchanted creature dies, attach this to a land you control. When a creature ETBs under your control, if this is enchanting a land, you may attach it to that creature."

But that's a pretty different design. Looking at Charm as it is here... It reminds me a little of Prison Term. I think Charm will function similarly.

It's especially interesting that you can always save it for when you need it by moving it onto a land.

But yeah; once it's on a creature, it's probably toast when the creature is.

@Alex @Vitenka Charms are not auras, they don't die when they aren't attached to a permanent.

That's... very much not obvious from it. With that change though, yeah, ok, it's just flat our equipment that is, for some odd reason, not an artifact. Being limited to cost for the equip seems like it would seriously limit how big they can be.

For clarity: If this is functionally equipment; just make it be equipment.

Oh, that needs to be written into the reminder text. I would have never assumed that on my own. It's a lot like printing a Wall without Defender. Sure, it can attack. But very few people are going to assume that's an option.