HijackAttack is correct. kauefr's wording isn't a standard template, and the doesn't-untap ability should indeed be separate to the add-a-counter ability. SecretInfiltrator's suggestion would have people confused about whether it applies when the creature's untapped.

You could buff the buff mode of this by taking down the cost to or .

This reads like Cocoon, which did have the "creature you control" restriction, and was thus really really bad.

I'd give this a name that makes it look more like something nasty, and then it can be like Immobilizing Ink, a removal spell that secretly can occasionally be useful on your own stuff. See also Evolution Vat , Defiling Tears, Otherworldly Journey, and things like Immolation.

I think a way to bring the removal side in power down to the buff side is to alter the last ability to:

• Enchanted creature has ": Untap this creature, then destroy ~."

Overall this card could use some simplification/shortening of text e. g. unifying the second and third ability to:

• If enchanted creature would untap during its controller's untap step, put a +1/+1 counter on it instead.

The buff side is weak compared to the removal side; I don't think many people will use it as a buff. I guess that the option is there - and if the opponent has a lot of ecnchantment removal you might do it. But it feels like "Here's a card that does two things! One you want to do!"

That would read cleaner, but I don't think it's the proper wording.

The card is supposed to be versatile -- it can be a buff or removal. Obviously it's much better as removal, but I like the flexibility it provides. If you want to use it as a buff, you have to sink extra mana into it, so it doesn't seem too powerful.

Is this supposed to be removal or just a buff? If the latter, "Enchant creature you control" might remedy this.

And I think you can write the first 2 abilities in a single one "When Training Session enters the battlefield, tap enchanted creature, it doesn't untap during its controller's untap step."

Your opponent's Demystify might make this much, much worse than an Oblivion Ring. It's possible that HijackAttack got the cost right, since this is a risky card to run.

Though, I got to admit, that while I like the card, I don't like having to constantly remember to put a counter on an opponent's creature even when I'm sure my opponent has no enchantment removal, but the opponent doesn't want to admit to it. Annoying. Personally, I also shy away from good cards that can blow up in your face. If it was me, I'd make adding a counter optional, and increasing the cost accordingly. Not everyone has my tastes though.

Kinda interesting idea; but sadly mainly just a cheaper Oblivion Ring.

Don't gold archetype cards tend to be uncommon anyway? If they're common, people will just fight over archetypes.

Huh. An upcosted Counterspell I'd consider using. Nice.

edit: nvm i'm dumb