So I had an idea. Split cards have traditionally only been limited to instants and sorceries because having split permanents would be too confusing (which side is on the field?). But what if there were split permanents that had half of the card (the half that wasn't cast) hidden behind something, the same way people typically stick aura's behind the creature they're enchanting? For example;
Unstoppable Force2R
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant creature
Enchanted creature gets +3/+0 and has trample.
// Immovable Object1W
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant creature
Enchanted creature gets +0/+3 and has vigilance.
When you cast one half, you stick the other half behind the creature it enchants so that the half you cast sticks out, the same way an aftermath card sticks out from your graveyard.
I've never seen anyone stick an aura behind a creature. It's always been aan uara on top of the creature.
REALLY? Wow. For over 20 years I've seen people put the Aura under the permanent it's enchanting. Only occasionally over the permanent. Recently, (the last year or two) there's been more instances of overlaying it. I think that's a bad way to do it particularly in regards to creatures that can still attack and/or block.
I've never seen anyone stick an aura behind a creature. It's always been aan uara on top of the creature.
REALLY? Wow. For over 20 years I've seen people put the Aura under the permanent it's enchanting. Only occasionally over the permanent. Recently, (the last year or two) there's been more instances of overlaying it. I think that's a bad way to do it particularly in regards to creatures that can still attack and/or block.
Yes, really.
701.3a To attach an Aura, Equipment, or Fortification to an object means to take it from where it currently is and put it onto that object
I suppose everyone you've seen also puts equipment underneath a creature?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
I like the idea but memory/cheating issues may be the only issue if players "forget" side of the enchantment they used originally. One solution might be split card style with one half flipped 180, that way the "correctly" oriented card can be assumed to be the one you used.
I put enchantments under the creature so the full creature card is visible as well as the name of the enchantment. I find it easier as I can tap the creature without having to also tap whatever else is equipped/enchanting it
Certain auras that are stopping the creature from attacking etc. go on top of the card though, just so there is an exception to prove the rule.
Why wouldn't you? You get the all the details of the card, the artwork, and the actual important parts of the attatched cards.
The occasional exception being hostile auras such as pacifism.
MTR 4.1
You are not allowed to cover the name of any object (which is what happens if you put an aura behind a creature). You can cover the artwork, you can cover the rules text. You can't cover the name, because that's the actual important part.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Why wouldn't you? You get the all the details of the card, the artwork, and the actual important parts of the attatched cards.
The occasional exception being hostile auras such as pacifism.
MTR 4.1
You are not allowed to cover the name of any object (which is what happens if you put an aura behind a creature).
I've never seen anyone cover the name of the aura when they put it under the creature. They put it so the name peeks out, and the rules text, art, etc are what's covered.
Auras are tricky since the line of "Enchant *foo*" takes up space in an already downsized text box.
Can you do even a single cycle of five cards with the restrictions of Auras? I personally am not too thrilled by the first example thinking about how this would play out over many cards.
Why wouldn't you? You get the all the details of the card, the artwork, and the actual important parts of the attatched cards.
The occasional exception being hostile auras such as pacifism.
MTR 4.1
You are not allowed to cover the name of any object (which is what happens if you put an aura behind a creature). You can cover the artwork, you can cover the rules text. You can't cover the name, because that's the actual important part.
We could changes cardfraes and rules to let this happen... but let me ask you this: Does this open up a lot of design space?
Auras are notoriously tricky to do right, given the inherent card disadvantage, but I think there are three "kinds" of auras that open up fair design space:
Now, you could always create a modal spell that creates aura-tokens, letting you do "split auras" as you like. Aura tokens would be an interesting concept for a block (and by block, I mean 3 set blocks; none of this 1 or 2 set blocks. Set 1 sets tone and then sets 2 and 3 develop mechanics and just fill in more cards with those mechanics); but I don't know it'd be something we want to do often.
If you're committed to an Aura token set, you can do the following things:
1. "Model" Aura spells (creates 1 of 2-3 auras)
2. Creatures/permanents that create aura tokens on themselves or others. (Spell shaper aura token creators cycle; but also guys that create them otherwise...)
3. Spells that create multiple copies of a single aura (sorceries/instants w/ storm???)
Returning mechanics:
Set 1: Heroic, Entwine (on modal aura token spells?)
Set 2: + Flashback (on spells that create auras)
Set 3: + Storm (on the aura-producing cards?)
And then all of your sets tokens could be auras. You could have multiple spells create the same auras.
Sample 1
Sorcery (C)
Choose a target creature.
If you spent R to play this, create an enchantment aura token named "Boros Blade" attached to that creature with "Enchant Creature" and "Enchanted creature gets +2/+0 and First Strike."
If you spent W to play this, create an enchantment aura token named "Boros Shield" attached to that creature with "Enchant Creature" and "Enchanted creature gets "+0/+2 and lifelink."
(Do both if you paid RW)
Sample Creature 3RR
Creature - Goblin Soldier (U)
When Sample Creature attacks, you create an enchantment aura token named "Boros Blade" with "Enchant Creature" and "Enchanted creature gets +2/+0 and First Strike" attached to each attacking creature you control.
2/2
What about using Double Faced Cards? Something like:
Unstoppable Force1R
Enchantment - Aura
When ~ ETB you may pay W if you do transform ~ and attach it to this enchanted creature.
Enchant Creature
Enchanted creature gets +3/+0 and has trample.
// Immobile Object
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant Creature
Enchanted creature gets +0/+3 and has vigilance
Not sure how to word it exactly but the idea is there. Workable or not?
We could changes cardfraes and rules to let this happen... but let me ask you this: Does this open up a lot of design space?
Auras are notoriously tricky to do right, given the inherent card disadvantage, but I think there are three "kinds" of auras that open up fair design space:
Now, you could always create a modal spell that creates aura-tokens, letting you do "split auras" as you like. Aura tokens would be an interesting concept for a block (and by block, I mean 3 set blocks; none of this 1 or 2 set blocks. Set 1 sets tone and then sets 2 and 3 develop mechanics and just fill in more cards with those mechanics); but I don't know it'd be something we want to do often.
If you're committed to an Aura token set, you can do the following things:
1. "Model" Aura spells (creates 1 of 2-3 auras)
2. Creatures/permanents that create aura tokens on themselves or others. (Spell shaper aura token creators cycle; but also guys that create them otherwise...)
3. Spells that create multiple copies of a single aura (sorceries/instants w/ storm???)
Returning mechanics:
Set 1: Heroic, Entwine (on modal aura token spells?)
Set 2: + Flashback (on spells that create auras)
Set 3: + Storm (on the aura-producing cards?)
And then all of your sets tokens could be auras. You could have multiple spells create the same auras.
Sample 1
Sorcery (C)
Choose a target creature.
If you spent R to play this, create an enchantment aura token named "Boros Blade" attached to that creature with "Enchant Creature" and "Enchanted creature gets +2/+0 and First Strike."
If you spent W to play this, create an enchantment aura token named "Boros Shield" attached to that creature with "Enchant Creature" and "Enchanted creature gets "+0/+2 and lifelink."
(Do both if you paid RW)
Sample Creature 3RR
Creature - Goblin Soldier (U)
When Sample Creature attacks, you create an enchantment aura token named "Boros Blade" with "Enchant Creature" and "Enchanted creature gets +2/+0 and First Strike" attached to each attacking creature you control.
2/2
Why exactly won't cardframes or rules allow this?
Also, this potentially opens up space to do all kinds of split permanents. For example, Imagine a mechanic like this:
Materialize (cost) (If you cast this for its materlialize cost, create a 0/0 white Elemental creature token. This Aura enchants it.)
Essentially letting you create split "creatures" by using the token to hide the half of the aura that wasn't cast.
I'm not getting into a discussion about the limits of cardframes with you. Quite frankly, I don't even think split spells work; and every digital version of magic wizards has shoved down my ipad agrees, displaying at best half of the card on the stack.
The big difference, of course, is that spells go away; auras don't. So you'd have both "halves" on the field with one half not enchanting anything? At some point you just have to admit that you're doing things to be different, not because it's good for the game mechanics.
Re: Split permanents - How would split creatures work? Short answer: They wouldn't.
I think someone did "materialize" in DCC for equipment a few months back while I was still lurking. Find that guy's post, copy it. But I don't see how this constitutes "split permanents".
Essentially letting you create split "creatures" by using the token to hide the half of the aura that wasn't cast.
I don't know what that means. Maybe it's hard to grasp in text, and easy to grasp in card form. But your earlier photograb doesn't work w/ current roles, and will confuse players.
I'm not getting into a discussion about the limits of cardframes with you. Quite frankly, I don't even think split spells work; and every digital version of magic wizards has shoved down my ipad agrees, displaying at best half of the card on the stack.
The big difference, of course, is that spells go away; auras don't. So you'd have both "halves" on the field with one half not enchanting anything? At some point you just have to admit that you're doing things to be different, not because it's good for the game mechanics.
Re: Split permanents - How would split creatures work? Short answer: They wouldn't.
I think someone did "materialize" in DCC for equipment a few months back while I was still lurking. Find that guy's post, copy it. But I don't see how this constitutes "split permanents".
I don't know what that means. Maybe it's hard to grasp in text, and easy to grasp in card form. But your earlier photograb doesn't work w/ current roles, and will confuse players.
Also, this potentially opens up space to do all kinds of split permanents. For example, Imagine a mechanic like this:
Materialize (cost) (If you cast this for its materlialize cost, create a 0/0 white Elemental creature token. This Aura enchants it.)
Essentially letting you create split "creatures" by using the token to hide the half of the aura that wasn't cast.
Are you saying you would have split Aura's each with Materialize so as to replicate split creatures? I mean that would work(assuming the split aura thing worked) but its not new design space opened by split auras, unless you mean that split auras open the door for other split permanents. The concept isn't that strange, people have suggested split permanents before, and with a kind of marker(like the new eternalize counter) its slightly more reasonable. I don't think this opens any design space, its just a nifty(different) way of doing things that sets need now and again.
Are we agreeing to disagree about how I don't understand how your proposal would work? Because I'm pretty sure I'm the expert on my own mind. And I just don't know how your proposal would work with the current rules.
Are we agreeing to disagree about how I don't understand how your proposal would work? Because I'm pretty sure I'm the expert on my own mind. And I just don't know how your proposal would work with the current rules.
I've asked you to clarify that, but you chose not to get into that discussion, and I totally respect that.
I ask these things genuinely in the interest of understanding your perspective and making more informed design choices, not just to argue.
A "Split aura" is two auras on one card. Unless this is Unhinged and you're cutting the card in half, it's going to result in an aura on the battlefield you played physically, but not gameplaywise, attached to an aura you didn't play.
These are facts. Your attached photo has you hiding the name of a card in play hoping people will ignore it, while leaving the actual aura attached jutting out of the side. Is that how you use normal auras and equipment? Setting them to the left of the card?
A "Split aura" is two auras on one card. Unless this is Unhinged and you're cutting the card in half, it's going to result in an aura on the battlefield you played physically, but not gameplaywise, attached to an aura you didn't play.
These are facts. Your attached photo has you hiding the name of a card in play hoping people will ignore it, while leaving the actual aura attached jutting out of the side. Is that how you use normal auras and equipment? Setting them to the left of the card?
I think I understand the problem. I'll try to address it point-by-point, but I will admit, there aren't rules in place that work with this yet.
THE HALF THAT WASN'T CAST
So if I understand you correctly, there are rules against covering the name of any permanent on the battlefield, correct? My solution to that is based on how the rules for split cards can be interpreted: If a split card has two sets or characteristics (converted man cost being different due to recent rules changes), then one could argue it has two valid names. So, hypothetically, the same way that only one half of a split card is put on the stack when it's cast, only one half of my split card is actually on the battlefield, and thus, the only valid name it needs is the one that belongs to the half that was cast. The other half, the one that wasn't cast, is essentially treated as though it doesn't exist, like it is on the stack (if I understand this correctly). Therefore, hiding half of a split card on the battlefield shouldn't really be breaking any rules.
POSITIONING OF SPLIT AURAS ON THE BATTLEFIELD
This is sort of the focal point of the post. It plays off of the same idea that Aftermath plays off of, where the way the card visually looks can help the player determine what part of the card is actually relevant. For Aftermath cards, the half that you can cast from your graveyard is visually designed to be able to stick out of your graveyard, signallijg to the player that it can be cast.
The basic idea is the same here, where the visual design of the card takes advantage of how auras are physically placed on the battlefield relative to the creatures they enchant. The majority of players have an aura that is enchanting a specific creature stuck behind the creature so that the name pokes out of the top. Sometimes they're stacked in slightly different ways, like diagonally, or to the side, but the idea is always the same.
My idea uses that habitual placement of auras sticking out from behind the creature they enchant to also serve the purpose of keeping track of which half of the split card is actually on the battlefield. If the card is stuck behind the creature it enchants, part of that card will be obscured. Conveniently, the split card frame allows the obscured part of the card to be the part that wasn't cast, letting all players easily see that the other half is what's actually on the battlefield.
It plays into human nature, which is the basis of good design, and that's why I think this could be possibly the only way split permanents could work.
MATERIALIZE
The mechanic I suggested works a lot like Living Weapon, allowing you to play an enchantment without actually having a target to enchabt, as it makes its own. I think this could emulate non-Aura-like cards because it generates a token that could do the same thing a creature would: hide the half of a split permanent that wasn't cast. Obviously it would still need to be an Aura to actually enchant the token, but I'm thinking of designs that function like non-Auras. For example:
Feast1GG
Enchantment - Aura
Materialize 3GG (When you cast this for its materialize cost, create a 0/0 white Elemental creature token. This enchants that token.)
Enchant creature
Enchanted creature gets +1/+1.
Whenever you tap a land for mana, add one mana of any color to your mana pool.
// Famine3BB
Enchantment - Aura
Materialize 4BB
Enchant creature
Enchanted creature gets +1/+1.
At the beginning of each opponent's upkeep, that player sacrifices a creature unless he or she pays 3 life.
This card is essentially two different permanents that simply rely on having a creature unless you cast them for the materialize cost, in which cast they provide that themselves. The idea is that the token is used to hide the half that wasn't cast.
It's sort if a long shot idea, but I think it has potential.
Rules - I don't think either of us have a PhD in Magic Comprehensive Rules. The point is this: You have a card with two auras on it representing one aura.
Placing it on the battlefield - If you have a split aura A/B, and play A, it enters the battlefield. How do you represent it being A and not B? Don't ask us to "just remember" it. The idea of "hiding" it is silly too. Also, how would blinking it work?
I remember non-wizards folk freaking out over Kamigawa-era flip cards. They print proxies for double-faced cards, then go so far as print "Exert" reminders because they forgot how to template "Depletion Counters". I could imagine a Rube Goldberg-esque manipulation of the rules, coupled with ancillary products designed to help us remember "which aura" was really played, and which we would completely disregard. But I want to play magic; not do my taxes.
Aftermath - None of these cards are on the battlefield. Also, please don't use Aftermath as an example of something done right.
Final thought: You're effectively asking us to imagine [Split Cards] + [Auras]. You might just as easily ask us to imagine it + [Lands] or + [Planeswalkers] or + [Tokens]. But because of the significant way permanents and non-permanents play, you're not really asking us to imagine anything that can be done. It's like asking to print Storm on a land, or Buyback on aura.
I get it; you want split cards that end up being permanents. This isn't going to happen. It can't happen, ruleswise. (Mind you, if Wizards ever goes to Instant being a supetype, and changes Evoke creatures into Sorcery Creatures or whatever; all this is out the window. Up is blue and left is 24.)
But you can have split cards - instants or sorceries - that create permanent tokens. Auras. Creatures. Whatever. I like the design space your idea would open up... but it doesn't really open it up; as split cards have always had the ability to produce tokens.
Come on man - it's like you're asking me to explain why wheels shouldn't be shaped like an "8"... I shouldn't have to tell you why 8's don't make good wheels.
I'm not getting into a discussion about the limits of cardframes with you. Quite frankly, I don't even think split spells work; and every digital version of magic wizards has shoved down my ipad agrees, displaying at best half of the card on the stack.
Which is correct. Only half the card is recognized by the rules while the card represents a spell on the stack (for a split card that has been cast without fuse). As you are commenting on whether the rules support split cards "work" or do not, you should be aware of this.
Obviously digital products use additional visual aids where they are useful e. g. hiding information during times it is not not applicable, calculating "effective toughness" for creatures with damage marked, adding icons and animations for common abilities. Methods that are restricted in physical cards.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
Come on man - it's like you're asking me to explain why wheels shouldn't be shaped like an "8"... I shouldn't have to tell you why 8's don't make good wheels.
Also note you're still not actually contributing anything.
Clever. Too bad it's not an 8 and not a wheel (it has wheels in it). So, by analogy, you've given an example of a deck box to "prove" that split auras can be a thing.
I'm apparently one of few voices of reason here - This doesn't work and it's not that interesting even if it did. I also posted cards that did more or less what he wanted to while actually working. In terms of "contributing something," I would think being reasonable is contributing.
Question: Are you contributing something by saying I'm not contributing anything? (AKA; do you practice what you preach?) I'm gonna turn the other cheek now.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Unstoppable Force 2R
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant creature
Enchanted creature gets +3/+0 and has trample.
//
Immovable Object 1W
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant creature
Enchanted creature gets +0/+3 and has vigilance.
When you cast one half, you stick the other half behind the creature it enchants so that the half you cast sticks out, the same way an aftermath card sticks out from your graveyard.
What do you guys think?
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
REALLY? Wow. For over 20 years I've seen people put the Aura under the permanent it's enchanting. Only occasionally over the permanent. Recently, (the last year or two) there's been more instances of overlaying it. I think that's a bad way to do it particularly in regards to creatures that can still attack and/or block.
Yes, really.
701.3a To attach an Aura, Equipment, or Fortification to an object means to take it from where it currently is and put it onto that object
I suppose everyone you've seen also puts equipment underneath a creature?
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
I put enchantments under the creature so the full creature card is visible as well as the name of the enchantment. I find it easier as I can tap the creature without having to also tap whatever else is equipped/enchanting it
Certain auras that are stopping the creature from attacking etc. go on top of the card though, just so there is an exception to prove the rule.
MTR 4.1
You are not allowed to cover the name of any object (which is what happens if you put an aura behind a creature). You can cover the artwork, you can cover the rules text. You can't cover the name, because that's the actual important part.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
I've never seen anyone cover the name of the aura when they put it under the creature. They put it so the name peeks out, and the rules text, art, etc are what's covered.
Can you do even a single cycle of five cards with the restrictions of Auras? I personally am not too thrilled by the first example thinking about how this would play out over many cards.
Watch Shota Yasooka play an Aura on a creature during Pro Tour Amonkhet and be enlightened!
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
We could changes cardfraes and rules to let this happen... but let me ask you this: Does this open up a lot of design space?
Auras are notoriously tricky to do right, given the inherent card disadvantage, but I think there are three "kinds" of auras that open up fair design space:
1. Normal auras. Unholy Strength
2. Normal auras with flash Alexi's Cloak
3. Equipment-like auras Rancor
Now, you could always create a modal spell that creates aura-tokens, letting you do "split auras" as you like. Aura tokens would be an interesting concept for a block (and by block, I mean 3 set blocks; none of this 1 or 2 set blocks. Set 1 sets tone and then sets 2 and 3 develop mechanics and just fill in more cards with those mechanics); but I don't know it'd be something we want to do often.
If you're committed to an Aura token set, you can do the following things:
1. "Model" Aura spells (creates 1 of 2-3 auras)
2. Creatures/permanents that create aura tokens on themselves or others. (Spell shaper aura token creators cycle; but also guys that create them otherwise...)
3. Spells that create multiple copies of a single aura (sorceries/instants w/ storm???)
Returning mechanics:
Set 1: Heroic, Entwine (on modal aura token spells?)
Set 2: + Flashback (on spells that create auras)
Set 3: + Storm (on the aura-producing cards?)
And then all of your sets tokens could be auras. You could have multiple spells create the same auras.
Sample 1
Sorcery (C)
Choose a target creature.
If you spent R to play this, create an enchantment aura token named "Boros Blade" attached to that creature with "Enchant Creature" and "Enchanted creature gets +2/+0 and First Strike."
If you spent W to play this, create an enchantment aura token named "Boros Shield" attached to that creature with "Enchant Creature" and "Enchanted creature gets "+0/+2 and lifelink."
(Do both if you paid RW)
Sample Creature 3RR
Creature - Goblin Soldier (U)
When Sample Creature attacks, you create an enchantment aura token named "Boros Blade" with "Enchant Creature" and "Enchanted creature gets +2/+0 and First Strike" attached to each attacking creature you control.
2/2
Unstoppable Force 1R
Enchantment - Aura
When ~ ETB you may pay W if you do transform ~ and attach it to this enchanted creature.
Enchant Creature
Enchanted creature gets +3/+0 and has trample.
//
Immobile Object
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant Creature
Enchanted creature gets +0/+3 and has vigilance
Not sure how to word it exactly but the idea is there. Workable or not?
Also, this potentially opens up space to do all kinds of split permanents. For example, Imagine a mechanic like this:
Materialize (cost) (If you cast this for its materlialize cost, create a 0/0 white Elemental creature token. This Aura enchants it.)
Essentially letting you create split "creatures" by using the token to hide the half of the aura that wasn't cast.
The big difference, of course, is that spells go away; auras don't. So you'd have both "halves" on the field with one half not enchanting anything? At some point you just have to admit that you're doing things to be different, not because it's good for the game mechanics.
Re: Split permanents - How would split creatures work? Short answer: They wouldn't.
I think someone did "materialize" in DCC for equipment a few months back while I was still lurking. Find that guy's post, copy it. But I don't see how this constitutes "split permanents".
I don't know what that means. Maybe it's hard to grasp in text, and easy to grasp in card form. But your earlier photograb doesn't work w/ current roles, and will confuse players.
Are we agreeing to disagree about how I don't understand how your proposal would work? Because I'm pretty sure I'm the expert on my own mind. And I just don't know how your proposal would work with the current rules.
I ask these things genuinely in the interest of understanding your perspective and making more informed design choices, not just to argue.
These are facts. Your attached photo has you hiding the name of a card in play hoping people will ignore it, while leaving the actual aura attached jutting out of the side. Is that how you use normal auras and equipment? Setting them to the left of the card?
THE HALF THAT WASN'T CAST
So if I understand you correctly, there are rules against covering the name of any permanent on the battlefield, correct? My solution to that is based on how the rules for split cards can be interpreted: If a split card has two sets or characteristics (converted man cost being different due to recent rules changes), then one could argue it has two valid names. So, hypothetically, the same way that only one half of a split card is put on the stack when it's cast, only one half of my split card is actually on the battlefield, and thus, the only valid name it needs is the one that belongs to the half that was cast. The other half, the one that wasn't cast, is essentially treated as though it doesn't exist, like it is on the stack (if I understand this correctly). Therefore, hiding half of a split card on the battlefield shouldn't really be breaking any rules.
POSITIONING OF SPLIT AURAS ON THE BATTLEFIELD
This is sort of the focal point of the post. It plays off of the same idea that Aftermath plays off of, where the way the card visually looks can help the player determine what part of the card is actually relevant. For Aftermath cards, the half that you can cast from your graveyard is visually designed to be able to stick out of your graveyard, signallijg to the player that it can be cast.
The basic idea is the same here, where the visual design of the card takes advantage of how auras are physically placed on the battlefield relative to the creatures they enchant. The majority of players have an aura that is enchanting a specific creature stuck behind the creature so that the name pokes out of the top. Sometimes they're stacked in slightly different ways, like diagonally, or to the side, but the idea is always the same.
My idea uses that habitual placement of auras sticking out from behind the creature they enchant to also serve the purpose of keeping track of which half of the split card is actually on the battlefield. If the card is stuck behind the creature it enchants, part of that card will be obscured. Conveniently, the split card frame allows the obscured part of the card to be the part that wasn't cast, letting all players easily see that the other half is what's actually on the battlefield.
It plays into human nature, which is the basis of good design, and that's why I think this could be possibly the only way split permanents could work.
MATERIALIZE
The mechanic I suggested works a lot like Living Weapon, allowing you to play an enchantment without actually having a target to enchabt, as it makes its own. I think this could emulate non-Aura-like cards because it generates a token that could do the same thing a creature would: hide the half of a split permanent that wasn't cast. Obviously it would still need to be an Aura to actually enchant the token, but I'm thinking of designs that function like non-Auras. For example:
Feast 1GG
Enchantment - Aura
Materialize 3GG (When you cast this for its materialize cost, create a 0/0 white Elemental creature token. This enchants that token.)
Enchant creature
Enchanted creature gets +1/+1.
Whenever you tap a land for mana, add one mana of any color to your mana pool.
//
Famine 3BB
Enchantment - Aura
Materialize 4BB
Enchant creature
Enchanted creature gets +1/+1.
At the beginning of each opponent's upkeep, that player sacrifices a creature unless he or she pays 3 life.
This card is essentially two different permanents that simply rely on having a creature unless you cast them for the materialize cost, in which cast they provide that themselves. The idea is that the token is used to hide the half that wasn't cast.
It's sort if a long shot idea, but I think it has potential.
Placing it on the battlefield - If you have a split aura A/B, and play A, it enters the battlefield. How do you represent it being A and not B? Don't ask us to "just remember" it. The idea of "hiding" it is silly too. Also, how would blinking it work?
I remember non-wizards folk freaking out over Kamigawa-era flip cards. They print proxies for double-faced cards, then go so far as print "Exert" reminders because they forgot how to template "Depletion Counters". I could imagine a Rube Goldberg-esque manipulation of the rules, coupled with ancillary products designed to help us remember "which aura" was really played, and which we would completely disregard. But I want to play magic; not do my taxes.
Aftermath - None of these cards are on the battlefield. Also, please don't use Aftermath as an example of something done right.
Finally feast or famine.
Final thought: You're effectively asking us to imagine [Split Cards] + [Auras]. You might just as easily ask us to imagine it + [Lands] or + [Planeswalkers] or + [Tokens]. But because of the significant way permanents and non-permanents play, you're not really asking us to imagine anything that can be done. It's like asking to print Storm on a land, or Buyback on aura.
I get it; you want split cards that end up being permanents. This isn't going to happen. It can't happen, ruleswise. (Mind you, if Wizards ever goes to Instant being a supetype, and changes Evoke creatures into Sorcery Creatures or whatever; all this is out the window. Up is blue and left is 24.)
But you can have split cards - instants or sorceries - that create permanent tokens. Auras. Creatures. Whatever. I like the design space your idea would open up... but it doesn't really open it up; as split cards have always had the ability to produce tokens.
Which is correct. Only half the card is recognized by the rules while the card represents a spell on the stack (for a split card that has been cast without fuse). As you are commenting on whether the rules support split cards "work" or do not, you should be aware of this.
Obviously digital products use additional visual aids where they are useful e. g. hiding information during times it is not not applicable, calculating "effective toughness" for creatures with damage marked, adding icons and animations for common abilities. Methods that are restricted in physical cards.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
Clever. Too bad it's not an 8 and not a wheel (it has wheels in it). So, by analogy, you've given an example of a deck box to "prove" that split auras can be a thing.
I'm apparently one of few voices of reason here - This doesn't work and it's not that interesting even if it did. I also posted cards that did more or less what he wanted to while actually working. In terms of "contributing something," I would think being reasonable is contributing.
Question: Are you contributing something by saying I'm not contributing anything? (AKA; do you practice what you preach?) I'm gonna turn the other cheek now.