Doesn't this kinda ruin the DEBT device for remembering Protection? Replacing the E (enchant/equip) with an A (attached) destroys the mneumonisity (Err...is that right?) of DEBT
DEBT -> DABT?
At first glance, this does seem to be related to Protection effects. This could make Protection reminder text a little less confusing. By using the word "attached," they now can reference Equipment and Locals/Auras at the same time.
Oh oh! Plus you can just look up "Creature" in Apprentice and not have your results polluted by billions of enchantments!
Yay!
Anyway, Aura Thief's reminder text will just get reworded to (You don't get to move Auras.) or (You don't get to reattach Auras.) The card itself still works.
EDIT: Okay, flavorwise, it gets screwed up. Shouldn't Aura Thief only get Auras?
Still seems pointless no matter how you justify it... Shifting the rules around for flavor seems odd, since it seems to me the last few rules shifts were away from flavor...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Underling Ethu's 263rd report read simply "Yes, my lord.Overwhelmingly, my lord." This marked the end of the Mirran-Phyrexian War.
Here's another big reason they did this that someone may have mentioned but got buried: It cleans up targetting a LOT. Targetting is usually easy -- if something says the word "target", it targets; well, except for local enchantments as they come into play. Those target too, but you just have to know that.
That is probably the biggest reason they're making this change. Only... the new style doesn't say 'target' either. Maybe the "Enchant Creature" part of the rules text will have the reminder invisitext with the word 'target'?
Unholy Strength B
Enchantment -- Aura
Enchant Creature (Unholy Strength comes into play attached to target creature.)
Enchanted Creature gets +2/+1
Listen, I've supported a lot of changes that others have not. I like the new card faces, I agree that creature types need updating, I don't mind Defender, but this, this I can't support.
1. "Aura" WTF. That sounds horrible.
2. This isn't nesscary. It's not at all hard to understand that Enchant Creature cards are Enchantments that go on creatures. And if (god forbid) a newb actually has to look at the comp. rules to understand something, the world's not going to end.
3. 12 years. Sorry, that's to late for a massive change like this.
4. It's actually more confusing. I know it doesn't look like at first, but trust me, this will confuse people.
5. Flavorful subtypes + Functunal Text = good? Hah! So you wan't to start calling instants something else and have the text box say what they do? Have fun.
So c'm'on people, lets get the point across to Wizards that this is a big mistake. (or at least a small one)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
These boards need Lucida Blackletter as a font option.
Quote from Soul_Grind »
I just meant that to assume using an arm lock on someone is an example of a peaceful solution is ludicrous.
Quote from PlatedOrnithopter »
To put it simply, women have to seek empowerment, whereas men have to live up to empowerment.
This might sound kinda weird but.... the "Aura" rules change would let them bring back the old style "Animate Dead" cards...
Those cards were eliminated because of extremely complicated rules garbage, but if they change the rules they open up ways to move cards around, attach to cards almost anywhere, and create new situations, all by eliminating the "enchant creature" type of permanant.... I like it
It would be nice if they did bring back the animate type enchantments. Since it is a black thing and they have been doing instants and sorceries to death already.
There's not much to say about this new development. However, I do like keywords and in my opinion the more the merrier.
Here's 3 reasons for "Enchantment- Aura":
1.) To help new players understand that local enchantments are enchantments too.
2.) To allow players to be enchanted and have it make more sense
3.) For an elegant look
I'll agree with #1 here, and I think that's the best thing to come out of this change. The other benefits are that now all card types are a single word, attaching enchantments works more similarly to equipment, and there are now no subtypes that are written differently from all others.
This does not make Enchant Players make any more sense, as they were always no more difficult to understand than any other local enchantment. As for claiming this has a more elegant look, that's insane. Adding extra text to describe something we already knew is more elegant? No, sorry, it isn't. It is more uniform with the rest of the game though, and for that reason I support it.
I also don't follow how this opens up any design space. To those who claim that it's now easier to make an enchantment that enchants only forests and green creatures, or something like that...uh, didn't you notice that they still have to spell it out exactly like they did before? Maybe I'm missing something here, but it doesn't seem to me like this allows any designs that weren't already possible, nor does it make it any easier to describe them in the rules text.
I just hope they find a way to work "target" into the reminder text like they did with equipment.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Horseshoe Hermit »
Karma doesn't exist. You can't depend on it. If you count on it for justice or catharsis, you will find that you have placed your emotions on very unstable ground; and you will either repeat your disappointment in society over and over, or you will engage in a persistent delusion to protect yourself from that feeling.
Considering that I just finished Stephen King's Insomnia last night, I'm abit freaked out that 30 minutes after I finish it, Magic adopts Auras. (Those who haven't read the book have no idea what I just said)
This is already on the CompRules (212.4c ).
As far as I can remember, it was introduced with the Eight Edition CR Update, and just to support Unglued Enchant Player.
I thought they were trying to get rid of subtypes that have rules baggage on them...
As I already explained once above: Aura isn't going to have rules baggage. It's going to be exactly like Equipment -- the artifact type "Equipment" doesn't do anything, the keyword "Equip X" does. This'll be the same way. It does get rid of rules baggage, because the old version relied entirely on subtypes to provide functionality, while the new version will use the rules text of the card to explain how it works and the subtype will simply be there to help you identify that the card is a local enchantment.
Quote from DevouringZombie »
The Enchant Creature seems unneeded.
It's totally needed. How else are you going to know that it enchants creatures, exactly? Note what I said about the rules text. That phrase is what makes it so that it enchants creatures under the rules. The Aura type doesn't actually do anything at all on its own.
Quote from VestDan »
In other words, they have been systematically eliminating all the inherited weirdness that's been around since the beginning of the game but never made much sense, or rather, asking themselves "If we were designing this game today, without the past 12 years as baggage but with the information we've learned from them, how would we do things differently?
Yep. Wizards' goal is to make the game what it should be, even if that means getting rid of numerous inconsistencies and foibles that players are used to now. Good for them, I say. Many of the things they've changed before are things I'm quite happy to have be the way they are today. I think Mark Rosewater's explained it pretty well: they want Magic to be around for 50 years. If people are gonna keep playing it for a long time, it's better to make changes now, as soon as possible, so that people can get used to them sooner and the game will be better off in the long run.
Quote from Darksaber11 »
12 years. Sorry, that's to late for a massive change like this.
See, that's ridiculous. This is a game that changes every year. It's never too late to change something. I salute Wizards for being willing to change things that don't work right about the game, even if they've been around for a long time.
Perhaps it'll be like this:
Rancor G
Enchantment- Aura
Enchant target creature
~Relevant game text~
this way, it gets target in there. or, it could be like this:
Rancor G
Enchantment- Aura
Enchant: Creature (as ~ comes into play, attach it to target creature)
This way, it's keyworded. (kinda) Just some suggestions.
As another note, I just realized one piece of design space this opens up:
Enchantment Creatures!
Before, you couldn't really print an Enchantment that came into play as a Creature as well, since "Enchantment Creature" and "Enchant Creature" looked too similar. Now, with "Enchant Creature" gone, they can print Enchantment Creatures if they'd like.
3. 12 years. Sorry, that's to late for a massive change like this.
Hmm, so 10 years isn't too late for a change that is a MILLION TIMES more massive (card faces, the very visual identity of the game), 11 years isn't too late to get rid of Legends and Walls, but 12 years is too late to change something that won't even interfere with how the game is played, and isn't as big of a deal as the card faces? Not sure I get that.
4. It's actually more confusing. I know it doesn't look like at first, but trust me, this will confuse people.
It confuses us, because we are used to Enchant Creature. Seeing as how we have things like "Legendary Creature", it makes all the sense in the world to change this as well. The fact that "Legendary Creature" and "Enchant Creature" aren't even remotely the same card type, even with very similar type line templates, is very confusing by itself. All they're trying to do is to clean up little glitches that are still running in the game, and they're doing a hell of a job if you ask me. If they put as much effort in actually balancing the sets and colors (they say they do, but frankly, I'm yet to see any results), we'd be in great shape.
I just had this brainwave, if they make "Creature - Licid Aura", when it becomes an enchantment it's already an Aura which has its own rules.
Can someone try to template a Licid for me?, I'm not up to it. I'm only awake because my bathroom is being done over until end of turn holidays.
Well, under these rules it looks like it would be:
Quickening Licid 1W
Creature--Licid 1W , T: Quickening Licid loses all abilities, becomes an Aura enchantment enchanting target creature, and gains "Enchant Creature," "Enchanted creature has first strike," and "W: End the effect that created this ability."
1/1
They can't do it as you proposed because creature types are not the same as enchantment types, and changing a Licid into an enchantment makes it lose its creature types. Not sure if it'd be templated with quotes around the Enchant Creature ability, though.
As another note, I just realized one piece of design space this opens up:
Enchantment Creatures!
Before, you couldn't really print an Enchantment that came into play as a Creature as well, since "Enchantment Creature" and "Enchant Creature" looked too similar. Now, with "Enchant Creature" gone, they can print Enchantment Creatures if they'd like.
I had that thought when I made an enchantment-based set - "Enchantment Creature" sounds better than "Creature Enchantment", but still wonky.
And HOW many times do we have to tell people that the enchantment subtype Aura does NOT HAVE ANY RULES. "Aura" does nothing. The keyword Enchant in the rules text does.
"Sufficiently advanced experience is indistinguishable from clairvoyance." -Carsten
"Ah those eyes, those horrible creepy eyes!" -Chaosof99
DCI Level 3 Judge & TO "I do not consider myself a hero. I know only what the Vec teach:
justice must always be served and corruption must always be opposed."
Go read! I am one of the three authors of Cranial Insertion.
But seriously, if you can't remember "Woapalanne", just call me Eli.
One thing I suspect they will remove is enchantments targetting the creature on casting. As matters stand, there's a needless duplication in the rules. A pro-white creature cannot be enchanted with a white enchantment anyway - it'll fall off as an SBE - so there's no need to have the spell be an illegal target in the first place as well. That would make the relevant rule read:
"When an Aura comes into play, attach it to a permanent of a type indicated by its enchant keyword text."
This means you will be able to play an Aura at any time ... but if you can't attach it to a permanent of the appropriate type when it comes into play it goes straight to the bin.
They wouldn't use "When", because that makes it a triggered ability and then they'd fall afoul of SBEs--they'd use "As ~ comes into play, choose a {foo}. ~ comes into play attached to that {foo}."
That's something I never thought of, actually. I suppose it'd change the functionality of Tetsuo Umezawa slightly, but it's not like anyone plays with him anyway.
Oh! But it would change the functionality of untargetable creatures quite drastically, so maybe it's not such a good idea. (They probably considered it at one point, though.)
...But looking at the rules R_E gave us, it seems they're not going to do that--it spells out that an "Aura spell" needs a target, so it sounds like they'll still be targeted spells.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 2 Magic Judge
Procrastination is an art form, and I am an artist. Knowledge knows no bounds.
And so people say to me, "How do I know if a word is real?" You know, anyone who's read a children's book knows that love makes things real. If you love a word, use it! That makes it real. Being in the dictionary is an artificial distinction; it doesn't make the word any more real than any other word. If you love a word, it becomes real.
--Erin McKean, Redefining the Dictionary
Of course they will have to eretta all the cards that say "_______ target enchanted ______" to "_______ target ________ with an enchantment attached to it." Functionaly its exactly the same but in my opinion it sorta just makes more text for a concept that was pretty simple to begin with...
But I like change, and the subtype dose make it looks spiffy so ill give it a +...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Why do I fight?... I keep on fighting to find that answer."
OK.. so out of the old players - those that have played a Very Long Time, say, before Tempest block - who remembers ever having trouble with local enchantments? I don't think it was ever an issue with our group, and I started before Legends came out. Now your average player has access to newsgroups like rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules for rules questions or .strategy for deck help, plus websites and IRC, PLUS most stores have at least a couple regular players that know the rules well if the clerks don't (which occasionally, they do). Sure the base set should be simple. That's why Banding is long gone, and Trample hasn't been in for a while. Is Enchant X that hard for a new player to grasp?
As for wording of the new Auras, why not just deal with them a la ABU version?
Mainly because, under current rules, a static ability can't target (and making it so that this wording would work would change the functionality of a lot of cards), but also because that wording brings it way too close to the wording of one-shot effects, making it easy for new players to misunderstand the difference between the two.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 2 Magic Judge
Procrastination is an art form, and I am an artist. Knowledge knows no bounds.
And so people say to me, "How do I know if a word is real?" You know, anyone who's read a children's book knows that love makes things real. If you love a word, use it! That makes it real. Being in the dictionary is an artificial distinction; it doesn't make the word any more real than any other word. If you love a word, it becomes real.
--Erin McKean, Redefining the Dictionary
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
DEBT -> DABT?
At first glance, this does seem to be related to Protection effects. This could make Protection reminder text a little less confusing. By using the word "attached," they now can reference Equipment and Locals/Auras at the same time.
Like the banner? Click it to visit Topher's Shop.
Yay!
Anyway, Aura Thief's reminder text will just get reworded to (You don't get to move Auras.) or (You don't get to reattach Auras.) The card itself still works.
EDIT: Okay, flavorwise, it gets screwed up. Shouldn't Aura Thief only get Auras?
Like the banner? Click it to visit Topher's Shop.
As for apprentice: You could just use MWS, and not have the problem anyway.
That is probably the biggest reason they're making this change. Only... the new style doesn't say 'target' either. Maybe the "Enchant Creature" part of the rules text will have the reminder invisitext with the word 'target'?
Unholy Strength B
Enchantment -- Aura
Enchant Creature (Unholy Strength comes into play attached to target creature.)
Enchanted Creature gets +2/+1
*shrug*
Trades
Articles
Winner of SSC 1 & ">3 & 6
Listen, I've supported a lot of changes that others have not. I like the new card faces, I agree that creature types need updating, I don't mind Defender, but this, this I can't support.
1. "Aura" WTF. That sounds horrible.
2. This isn't nesscary. It's not at all hard to understand that Enchant Creature cards are Enchantments that go on creatures. And if (god forbid) a newb actually has to look at the comp. rules to understand something, the world's not going to end.
3. 12 years. Sorry, that's to late for a massive change like this.
4. It's actually more confusing. I know it doesn't look like at first, but trust me, this will confuse people.
5. Flavorful subtypes + Functunal Text = good? Hah! So you wan't to start calling instants something else and have the text box say what they do? Have fun.
So c'm'on people, lets get the point across to Wizards that this is a big mistake. (or at least a small one)
These boards need Lucida Blackletter as a font option.
Those cards were eliminated because of extremely complicated rules garbage, but if they change the rules they open up ways to move cards around, attach to cards almost anywhere, and create new situations, all by eliminating the "enchant creature" type of permanant.... I like it
I'll agree with #1 here, and I think that's the best thing to come out of this change. The other benefits are that now all card types are a single word, attaching enchantments works more similarly to equipment, and there are now no subtypes that are written differently from all others.
This does not make Enchant Players make any more sense, as they were always no more difficult to understand than any other local enchantment. As for claiming this has a more elegant look, that's insane. Adding extra text to describe something we already knew is more elegant? No, sorry, it isn't. It is more uniform with the rest of the game though, and for that reason I support it.
I also don't follow how this opens up any design space. To those who claim that it's now easier to make an enchantment that enchants only forests and green creatures, or something like that...uh, didn't you notice that they still have to spell it out exactly like they did before? Maybe I'm missing something here, but it doesn't seem to me like this allows any designs that weren't already possible, nor does it make it any easier to describe them in the rules text.
I just hope they find a way to work "target" into the reminder text like they did with equipment.
About Nykthos, Shrine to Nyx:
This is already on the CompRules (212.4c ).
As far as I can remember, it was introduced with the Eight Edition CR Update, and just to support Unglued Enchant Player.
As I already explained once above: Aura isn't going to have rules baggage. It's going to be exactly like Equipment -- the artifact type "Equipment" doesn't do anything, the keyword "Equip X" does. This'll be the same way. It does get rid of rules baggage, because the old version relied entirely on subtypes to provide functionality, while the new version will use the rules text of the card to explain how it works and the subtype will simply be there to help you identify that the card is a local enchantment.
It's totally needed. How else are you going to know that it enchants creatures, exactly? Note what I said about the rules text. That phrase is what makes it so that it enchants creatures under the rules. The Aura type doesn't actually do anything at all on its own.
Yep. Wizards' goal is to make the game what it should be, even if that means getting rid of numerous inconsistencies and foibles that players are used to now. Good for them, I say. Many of the things they've changed before are things I'm quite happy to have be the way they are today. I think Mark Rosewater's explained it pretty well: they want Magic to be around for 50 years. If people are gonna keep playing it for a long time, it's better to make changes now, as soon as possible, so that people can get used to them sooner and the game will be better off in the long run.
See, that's ridiculous. This is a game that changes every year. It's never too late to change something. I salute Wizards for being willing to change things that don't work right about the game, even if they've been around for a long time.
Rancor G
Enchantment- Aura
Enchant target creature
~Relevant game text~
this way, it gets target in there. or, it could be like this:
Rancor G
Enchantment- Aura
Enchant: Creature (as ~ comes into play, attach it to target creature)
This way, it's keyworded. (kinda) Just some suggestions.
While it does seem somewhat unnecessary, I do like the fact that it helps streamline the game a bit more.
Enchantment Creatures!
Before, you couldn't really print an Enchantment that came into play as a Creature as well, since "Enchantment Creature" and "Enchant Creature" looked too similar. Now, with "Enchant Creature" gone, they can print Enchantment Creatures if they'd like.
It confuses us, because we are used to Enchant Creature. Seeing as how we have things like "Legendary Creature", it makes all the sense in the world to change this as well. The fact that "Legendary Creature" and "Enchant Creature" aren't even remotely the same card type, even with very similar type line templates, is very confusing by itself. All they're trying to do is to clean up little glitches that are still running in the game, and they're doing a hell of a job if you ask me. If they put as much effort in actually balancing the sets and colors (they say they do, but frankly, I'm yet to see any results), we'd be in great shape.
*****
ricklongo and RicardoLongo on MTGO
*****
Visit my gaming blog: http://www.gamingsweetgaming.blogspot.com
****************
Check out Rick's Picks, my PureMTGO article series
****************
I just had this brainwave, if they make "Creature - Licid Aura", when it becomes an enchantment it's already an Aura which has its own rules.
Can someone try to template a Licid for me?, I'm not up to it. I'm only awake because my bathroom is being done over until end of
turnholidays.Well, under these rules it looks like it would be:
Quickening Licid 1W
Creature--Licid
1W , T: Quickening Licid loses all abilities, becomes an Aura enchantment enchanting target creature, and gains "Enchant Creature," "Enchanted creature has first strike," and "W: End the effect that created this ability."
1/1
They can't do it as you proposed because creature types are not the same as enchantment types, and changing a Licid into an enchantment makes it lose its creature types. Not sure if it'd be templated with quotes around the Enchant Creature ability, though.
I had that thought when I made an enchantment-based set - "Enchantment Creature" sounds better than "Creature Enchantment", but still wonky.
And HOW many times do we have to tell people that the enchantment subtype Aura does NOT HAVE ANY RULES. "Aura" does nothing. The keyword Enchant in the rules text does.
"Sufficiently advanced experience is indistinguishable from clairvoyance." -Carsten
"Ah those eyes, those horrible creepy eyes!" -Chaosof99
DCI Level 3 Judge & TO
"I do not consider myself a hero. I know only what the Vec teach:
justice must always be served and corruption must always be opposed."
Go read! I am one of the three authors of Cranial Insertion.
But seriously, if you can't remember "Woapalanne", just call me Eli.
That's something I never thought of, actually. I suppose it'd change the functionality of Tetsuo Umezawa slightly, but it's not like anyone plays with him anyway.
Oh! But it would change the functionality of untargetable creatures quite drastically, so maybe it's not such a good idea. (They probably considered it at one point, though.)
...But looking at the rules R_E gave us, it seems they're not going to do that--it spells out that an "Aura spell" needs a target, so it sounds like they'll still be targeted spells.
Procrastination is an art form, and I am an artist.
Knowledge knows no bounds.
And so people say to me, "How do I know if a word is real?" You know, anyone who's read a children's book knows that love makes things real. If you love a word, use it! That makes it real. Being in the dictionary is an artificial distinction; it doesn't make the word any more real than any other word. If you love a word, it becomes real.
--Erin McKean, Redefining the Dictionary
But I like change, and the subtype dose make it looks spiffy so ill give it a +...
As for wording of the new Auras, why not just deal with them a la ABU version?
Unholy Strength
B
Enchant Creature // Enchantment - Aura
Target creature gets +2/+1.
Simple enough to me.
Procrastination is an art form, and I am an artist.
Knowledge knows no bounds.
And so people say to me, "How do I know if a word is real?" You know, anyone who's read a children's book knows that love makes things real. If you love a word, use it! That makes it real. Being in the dictionary is an artificial distinction; it doesn't make the word any more real than any other word. If you love a word, it becomes real.
--Erin McKean, Redefining the Dictionary