No big deal. If people aren't confusing Instant-Arcane with Arcane Denial etc., I don't see how Enchantment-Aura is going to necessarily throw off anything using Aura Fracture etc.
I can see why they did this; with the current rules, local anchantments don't have their card type on their type line, just the word enchant. This also causes rules problems; an enchant artifact creature could be either an enchantment that can enchant a artifact creature or an enchant artifact that is also a creature.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quotes:
Wary must be he who steps yet closer To this treasury filled with things of fame Enter here and steal just one, And Cursed will be all of your name!
Quote from VestDan »
YOU HEAR THAT, GUFF! THAT WAS THE FOURTH WALL YOU BROKE!THAT WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT WALL OF THEM ALL!
I don't like it. A clunky change that accomplishes nothing. With the space to say what it attaches to, there's less space to give abilities (such as with Pemmin's Aura).
Also, it doesn't do much for the rules either, I don't think. So what about global enchantments? They don't have a type either, so are they going to blow up? Oh noes, n00bs might think they do cause the rules reminder text doesn't say what enchantments do! Where does it go! OMGWTFBRBIGOTTAASKTHERULESFORUM! ENCHANT WORLD!! OMGWTF!!!*
*The Ultimate Nightmare of Wizards of the Coast(R) Customer Service (it won't show up in Autocard)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Also, consider that Liliana counts as occasional mana denial, and it starts to become a significant portion of our strategy.
Enchant Foo (This enchantment comes into play attached to target Foo.): A keyword ability on enchantments, typically those with the Aura subtype.
Enchanted: When a permanent has an enchantment with Enchant Foo attached to it, it is enchanted by that enchantment.
Notice the obvious parallels with Equipment:
Equipment: An artifact subtype.
Equip X (X: Attach to target creature you control. Play this ability only as a sorcery.): A keyword ability on artifacts, typically those with the Equipment subtype.
Equipped: When a permanent has an artifact with Equip attached to it, it is equipped by that artifact.
EDIT: Reason for preserving the terms "enchanted"/"equipped" vs. "attached:" Grammar. "Enchanted creature gets +2/+1" makes sense; with "attached" it would have to be something like "The creature to which Unholy Strength is attached gets +2/+1." Also note the similarity in appearence, yet significant difference in meaning, of "attached" vs. "attached to," compared to the more obvious difference of "enchanted" vs. "enchanting."
They could probably get away with one term for both "enchanted" and "equipped," though, ruleswise at least.
Why are people saying that this change doesn't accomplish anything? People have spent 4 pages explaining all the various things that it accomplishes. If you don't like it, say you don't like it because it's clunky (subjective measure), or because you don't like the word Aura, or because you understand the reasoning but it doesn't seem important enough to require a change. Saying "it doesn't accomplish anything" just makes you sound like you aren't reading other people's posts.
In the long line of changes brought forth by WotC, this isn't so bad. Granted, when I originally saw this topic my reastion was along the lines of "What in the...What could be going through the heads of these motherf..." However, after having had time to think about it, I can see the benefits of it.
They way I see it, it's one of those "we don't really need it, but it could end up helping a little" changes. I'm sure Magic would have lived long into the future had this "Aura" concept not been introduced. Since it will be, I can see how it will help rookies avoid confusion with enchantments, and the new interactions it'll produce. The only real problem I can think of, as many have already noted, is the overabundance of rules text it'll had to the cards. For any other WWE Raw Deal players here, we know how adding additional rules text to Superstar cards floods them with text.
All in all, this change isn't exactly something I'll be singing and dancing about, but it's far better than the new templating and artifact color. Oh, how I despise those...
I dunno, I really think this can cut both ways. The game has been around for almost 14 years. It sounds really corny, but we have to "pass the torch" to all the new players. In order to do that successfully, the game needs to be as simple as possible.
If you were a new player, I should think it would be easier to deal with Aura vs. Enchantment then to deal with Global vs. Local.
On that same token though - it really pisses the other, older players off. I think we just dont want our game to go to the n00bs.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to ButteBlues18 of The Little PhotoShop of Horrors for the banner!
"We do not suddenly fall on death, but advance towards it by slight degrees; we die every day."
-Seneca, Epistles, trans. Gummere
"All memory of your existence will be wiped from reality. You will die, and no one will mourn."
-Memnarch
I feel I'm one among few in this thread that say this is totally awesome. I was anticipating this sort of thing done to local enchantments. Just not this soon. It only makes sense for every card to be even more specific as to what it is on the type line. I know they already had it set for the loal enchantments, but it makes life easier to just call them all one thing--Auras. It goes well in flow with the shrines and the arcance we saw in Kamigawa. Last time I checked, no one whined or complained about that, so I really don't see what the big deal is here. Good call wizards, I like it:cool:
And something to say about the noobs vs. older players argument.....
I can assure you that there are many more new players who will CONTINUE to play the game [BUY their product] due to simplification than the number of older players who will stop right there and not give wizards another buck. They are a business, and want money, nothing wrong with that. Essentially, if you don't like it.....go ahead and cut back/stop spending on magic cards, there are several newer players filling your shoes as far as money is concerned.
And about how Core Sets should be for everyone, it's also called 'Advanced', which, is the grey area between 'Beginner' and 'Expert'. I'm sure we can all comprimise here.
As many others have told,it opens space for design and it may end up creating new mechanics.
The word "Aura" is the only thing I don't quite like.It sounds corny.
I'm still wondering whats going to be the new Oracle reference for the Licids...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's like MtG is science, and the elf deck is a "My First Chemistry Set'. <_<- Waervyn187
The word "Aura" is the only thing I don't quite like.It sounds corny.
Meh--it's not like they had much else to choose from.
Quote from Nyarlathotep »
I'm still wondering whats going to be the new Oracle reference for the Licids...
Flatmatt already posted the most likely wording:
Quote from flatmatt »
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
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
I honestly can't say why old timers really care about what the cards look like, this does not change anything in the game, so it doesn't matter (the legendary rule changed a whole lot, and creature subtypes with rules also), but this doesn't.
We are fairly intelligent people so this change should not interfer with our gameplay at all. So a couple of people will get the fits when this comes out and someone will definatly stop playing, but I see no reason to complaint. Let R&D do what they think is best, as long as cards work the way they used to we should not care (I don't).
That said, I agree that this change is for the better, although it may seem unnessecary, the change from "summon" to "creature" also was (I say this is the EXACT freaking same thing) - not a lot of guys stopped playing because of it.
And having the types streamlined does open up a lot of design space (read some of MaRo's articles will ya, he is infact a very smart guy) - if you can't see it there's a fairly good chance there's someone at R&D who's more clever than you that has a couple of ideas. But I don't think that's why they changed it. I think its coz of two major things:
1. If it doesn't say "target" it does not target. (except for enchant {something} bla-bla-bla-bla-bla)
2. Does disenchant effect rancor?
If you ask me this is good enough reason for the change.
Every single time there's a change made ppl get the fibbs (my playgroup is from Unlimited, and loath change) - I don't get it. If you're a magic player then these should not affect you at all (unless you have a very closed mind, and cannot learn new words for old things).
Just to remind everyone about the change in cardface: I read many posts about how that was destroying garfields child and stuff, but Richard Garfield PHD was on the design team of the new cardface. It was him that made the change.. And was it better - oh yes indeed. Now we can read what white card-names from more than a foot - that's improvement.
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.
Well, first let me say that now that I've read this thread more throughly I'm more willing to accept this "Aura" concept. (especially if it means Enchant Player type cards)
That being said I stand by my above statement. "Getting rid of Ledgends and Walls" made sense because they didn't really get rid of either. Walls are still around, and Legends now look more like their Legendary cousins.
The new card faces... I'm not going to go there. If you think that they're a big deal I'm not going to bother to change your mind.
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.
Well, first let me say that now that I've read this thread more throughly I'm more willing to accept this "Aura" concept. (especially if it means Enchant Player type cards)
Don't get too excited. The current rules allow for Enchant Player cards in pretty much the same way as these new ones, and have since... Eighth, at least, if not earlier. But we still haven't gotten any.
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
That being said I stand by my above statement. "Getting rid of Ledgends and Walls" made sense because they didn't really get rid of either. Walls are still around, and Legends now look more like their Legendary cousins.
Well, enchant creatures are still around, only now they're Enchantment - Aura. Same thing, really.
The new card faces... I'm not going to go there. If you think that they're a big deal I'm not going to bother to change your mind
Don't get me wrong. I didn't like the new card face at first, but it's grown on me and now i'm glad they changed it. That being said, there's no denying it was a big deal. Just look for the thread on the subject back on news, and look how srongly people felt about this decision on either side. It is, without a doubt, the biggest deal EVER on the Magic community, probably along with the Sixth Edition changes.
So, to sum it up: I liked the Sixth Edition rules changes and the Legendary/defender issue from the beginning. I hated the new card face at first, but it's really grown on me. So, if they're going to change Enchant Creatures into Auras, I'm more than willing to give them some credit, because they've earned it, really.
Enchant creature (As Giant Stength comes into play, attach it to target creature. If that creature leaves play, sacrifice Giant Strength.)
Enchanted creature gets +2/+2
Enchant permanent (As Confiscate comes into play, attach it to target permanent. If that permanent leaves play, sacrifice Confiscate.)
You control enchanted permanent.
This looks like an elegant way to word it, plus it would become clear that it targets when it comes into play.
That still doesn't account for the sacrificing of aura's when the permanent they enchant leaves play, which I think they would add to the reminder text (see my example above).
This is a great change to condense the card types & rules as well as simplifying the game as a whole.
There will definitly be remider-text containing both words, "target" (as in all other targeting spells/abilities) and "attach" (in line with equipment).
The keywords "Enchant ___", "Equip_" and "Imprint" (with their respective remider-texts) directly imply the meaning of words like "enchanted", "equipped" and "imprinted" used in the rules text, which is pretty elegant.
The TYPE-line's purpose is, as its name implies, to state the TYPE of the card, being neither "enchant" nor "creature" but "Enchantment".
And where do RULES belong? Joining the RULES-text in the text-box, maybe?? So that would be the place to state which type of permanents is allowed to be enchanted (and which aren't).
Those rules used to define different subtypes of "enchant ___"-cards such as "enchant land", "enchant creature" and "enchant permanent" (the last one being neither of the first two sub-subtypes instead of both), which is absurd -- and worse than "Legend" or "Wall" carrying rules baggage.
So I'd bet there won't be any more cards that care about this subtype of the subtype "-Aura", but affect ALL Auras instead. These where quite confusing using the old template anyway, as "destroy target enchant creature" looks really similar to the completely different "destroy target enchantED creature". People I played with kept mixing those two up, when not reading the cards properly, letter by letter.
Oh -- I just realized that the change from the verb "enchant" to the noun enchantment is also in line with the change from the verb "summon" to the noun "creature". I mean it's not the "action-line" but the "type-line" after all.
I am really curious as to how the oracle wording on Tallowisp will change... That will make it rather obvious how WotC is planning to do aura-interaction in the future...
Enchant creature (As Giant Stength comes into play, attach it to target creature. If that creature leaves play, sacrifice Giant Strength.)
Enchanted creature gets +2/+2
Enchant permanent (As Confiscate comes into play, attach it to target permanent. If that permanent leaves play, sacrifice Confiscate.)
You control enchanted permanent.
I think you got it! Well done!
And I believe old cards will get errata to retain their functionality, but new ones will say stuff like "return target Aura to owner's hand" rather than "target enchant creature Aura" or "target Aura that can enchant (ONLY???) a creature" or "target Aura with enchant creature".
My question is why not change them to "Enchantments - Local"? The subtype Aura may be a little more flavorish but I think Local would fit better since they are "local enchantments".
Maybe it's just me...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sig banner by Xyre. My MTG Blog (inactive)
GDS1 & GDS2 entrant. Former Rules Advisor & casual-level TO. Semi-lapsed player in general.
My question is why not change them to "Enchantments - Local"? The subtype Aura may be a little more flavorish but I think Local would fit better since they are "local enchantments".
Maybe it's just me...
Although local makes alot of sense, it just doesnt sound very appealing if you what I mean................
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Marce »
clergy en-vec read the flavor text prior to looking at the picture...much worse then boros guildmage
______zyrakris's gemstone caverns thread \/\/\/
Quote from ElementalCreatureToken »
Quote from SqueektheWeek »
i think this card is Freakin' awesome just imagine zoo with this even on the draw u flex "Nutz" any mana drawing the extra card u can pitch and turning up the gas on tempo and it still taps for mana easily a 3 of most likely a 4 of
Can somebody translate that please?
Quote from darkhammy »
Hang on, I need my gibber-to-english dictionary. Ah yes, here it is,
Step 1:
So make it so that all enchantments have 'Enchantment' clearly written in their box.
We all agree that makes sense. How did they do this?
Step 2:
Well make enchant a keyword. Works great. The keyword can include 'target'
Lots of problems fixed. Think we all agree that this is good.
One new problem: there are cards that affect local enchantments differently. Now we need a way to recognize them.
Step 3:
Give them subtype Local
Now we can recognize that they are distinct amoung enchantments, while still being enchantments. We can search for the card type 'local' as well. Functionality is practically the same, but everything is clearer
However, local seems bland for flavor
Step 4:
Make 'Local' into 'Aura'
Fixes the flavor a bit. Also lets us search and affect the cards without reading their text box, just the type bar.
That last statement makes me wonder about another ability... Flying
Flying is now unique in magic. You have to read the text box to determine is something is flying/non flying.. everything else has stuff stated in the type line.. but I don't think they'll change anythign with flying, that would be too much I think..
I don't think I'm thoroughly sold on this whole Aura idea. To me, it seems pretty clear that a card which Enchants something is an Enchantment card. But with the word target in the reminder text, it helps.... I still don't know if I like it.
Quote from drewdagreek »
That last statement makes me wonder about another ability... Flying
Flying is now unique in magic. You have to read the text box to determine is something is flying/non flying.. everything else has stuff stated in the type line.. but I don't think they'll change anythign with flying, that would be too much I think..
Same with First strike, Trample, Vigilance...
EDIT: Also, a problem with some of the wordings people have proposed. A few have said, "This comes into play attached to target creature." That doesn't work, because it's only true when you play the card, not when it comes into play via something like Replenish. Then again, it's only reminder text; besides, this wouldn't be that massive of a rules change anyway.
To this treasury filled with things of fame
Enter here and steal just one,
And Cursed will be all of your name!
Also, it doesn't do much for the rules either, I don't think. So what about global enchantments? They don't have a type either, so are they going to blow up? Oh noes, n00bs might think they do cause the rules reminder text doesn't say what enchantments do! Where does it go! OMGWTFBRBIGOTTAASKTHERULESFORUM! ENCHANT WORLD!! OMGWTF!!!*
*The Ultimate Nightmare of Wizards of the Coast(R) Customer Service (it won't show up in Autocard)
-MTG Salvation.
Aura: An enchantment subtype.
Enchant Foo (This enchantment comes into play attached to target Foo.): A keyword ability on enchantments, typically those with the Aura subtype.
Enchanted: When a permanent has an enchantment with Enchant Foo attached to it, it is enchanted by that enchantment.
Notice the obvious parallels with Equipment:
Equipment: An artifact subtype.
Equip X (X: Attach to target creature you control. Play this ability only as a sorcery.): A keyword ability on artifacts, typically those with the Equipment subtype.
Equipped: When a permanent has an artifact with Equip attached to it, it is equipped by that artifact.
EDIT: Reason for preserving the terms "enchanted"/"equipped" vs. "attached:" Grammar. "Enchanted creature gets +2/+1" makes sense; with "attached" it would have to be something like "The creature to which Unholy Strength is attached gets +2/+1." Also note the similarity in appearence, yet significant difference in meaning, of "attached" vs. "attached to," compared to the more obvious difference of "enchanted" vs. "enchanting."
They could probably get away with one term for both "enchanted" and "equipped," though, ruleswise at least.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
In the long line of changes brought forth by WotC, this isn't so bad. Granted, when I originally saw this topic my reastion was along the lines of "What in the...What could be going through the heads of these motherf..." However, after having had time to think about it, I can see the benefits of it.
They way I see it, it's one of those "we don't really need it, but it could end up helping a little" changes. I'm sure Magic would have lived long into the future had this "Aura" concept not been introduced. Since it will be, I can see how it will help rookies avoid confusion with enchantments, and the new interactions it'll produce. The only real problem I can think of, as many have already noted, is the overabundance of rules text it'll had to the cards. For any other WWE Raw Deal players here, we know how adding additional rules text to Superstar cards floods them with text.
All in all, this change isn't exactly something I'll be singing and dancing about, but it's far better than the new templating and artifact color. Oh, how I despise those...
If you were a new player, I should think it would be easier to deal with Aura vs. Enchantment then to deal with Global vs. Local.
On that same token though - it really pisses the other, older players off. I think we just dont want our game to go to the n00bs.
Thanks to ButteBlues18 of The Little PhotoShop of Horrors for the banner!
"We do not suddenly fall on death, but advance towards it by slight degrees; we die every day."
-Seneca, Epistles, trans. Gummere
"All memory of your existence will be wiped from reality. You will die, and no one will mourn."
-Memnarch
And something to say about the noobs vs. older players argument.....
I can assure you that there are many more new players who will CONTINUE to play the game [BUY their product] due to simplification than the number of older players who will stop right there and not give wizards another buck. They are a business, and want money, nothing wrong with that. Essentially, if you don't like it.....go ahead and cut back/stop spending on magic cards, there are several newer players filling your shoes as far as money is concerned.
And about how Core Sets should be for everyone, it's also called 'Advanced', which, is the grey area between 'Beginner' and 'Expert'. I'm sure we can all comprimise here.
Drop by my Helpdesk if you have any questions/concerns on the Limited forum.
Excited for M13 Limited? What do you think the format will look like? Head over to the limited forum and let us know what you think.
As many others have told,it opens space for design and it may end up creating new mechanics.
The word "Aura" is the only thing I don't quite like.It sounds corny.
I'm still wondering whats going to be the new Oracle reference for the Licids...
Flatmatt already posted the most likely wording:
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
We are fairly intelligent people so this change should not interfer with our gameplay at all. So a couple of people will get the fits when this comes out and someone will definatly stop playing, but I see no reason to complaint. Let R&D do what they think is best, as long as cards work the way they used to we should not care (I don't).
That said, I agree that this change is for the better, although it may seem unnessecary, the change from "summon" to "creature" also was (I say this is the EXACT freaking same thing) - not a lot of guys stopped playing because of it.
And having the types streamlined does open up a lot of design space (read some of MaRo's articles will ya, he is infact a very smart guy) - if you can't see it there's a fairly good chance there's someone at R&D who's more clever than you that has a couple of ideas. But I don't think that's why they changed it. I think its coz of two major things:
1. If it doesn't say "target" it does not target. (except for enchant {something} bla-bla-bla-bla-bla)
2. Does disenchant effect rancor?
If you ask me this is good enough reason for the change.
Every single time there's a change made ppl get the fibbs (my playgroup is from Unlimited, and loath change) - I don't get it. If you're a magic player then these should not affect you at all (unless you have a very closed mind, and cannot learn new words for old things).
Just to remind everyone about the change in cardface: I read many posts about how that was destroying garfields child and stuff, but Richard Garfield PHD was on the design team of the new cardface. It was him that made the change.. And was it better - oh yes indeed. Now we can read what white card-names from more than a foot - that's improvement.
Well, first let me say that now that I've read this thread more throughly I'm more willing to accept this "Aura" concept. (especially if it means Enchant Player type cards)
That being said I stand by my above statement. "Getting rid of Ledgends and Walls" made sense because they didn't really get rid of either. Walls are still around, and Legends now look more like their Legendary cousins.
The new card faces... I'm not going to go there. If you think that they're a big deal I'm not going to bother to change your mind.
These boards need Lucida Blackletter as a font option.
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
Don't get me wrong. I didn't like the new card face at first, but it's grown on me and now i'm glad they changed it. That being said, there's no denying it was a big deal. Just look for the thread on the subject back on news, and look how srongly people felt about this decision on either side. It is, without a doubt, the biggest deal EVER on the Magic community, probably along with the Sixth Edition changes.
So, to sum it up: I liked the Sixth Edition rules changes and the Legendary/defender issue from the beginning. I hated the new card face at first, but it's really grown on me. So, if they're going to change Enchant Creatures into Auras, I'm more than willing to give them some credit, because they've earned it, really.
*****
ricklongo and RicardoLongo on MTGO
*****
Visit my gaming blog: http://www.gamingsweetgaming.blogspot.com
****************
Check out Rick's Picks, my PureMTGO article series
****************
Giant Strength - RR
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant creature (This card comes into play attached to target creature.)
Enchanted creature gets +2/+2
*****
ricklongo and RicardoLongo on MTGO
*****
Visit my gaming blog: http://www.gamingsweetgaming.blogspot.com
****************
Check out Rick's Picks, my PureMTGO article series
****************
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant creature (As Giant Stength comes into play, attach it to target creature. If that creature leaves play, sacrifice Giant Strength.)
Enchanted creature gets +2/+2
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant permanent (As Confiscate comes into play, attach it to target permanent. If that permanent leaves play, sacrifice Confiscate.)
You control enchanted permanent.
Edit: Reword...
There will definitly be remider-text containing both words, "target" (as in all other targeting spells/abilities) and "attach" (in line with equipment).
The keywords "Enchant ___", "Equip_" and "Imprint" (with their respective remider-texts) directly imply the meaning of words like "enchanted", "equipped" and "imprinted" used in the rules text, which is pretty elegant.
The TYPE-line's purpose is, as its name implies, to state the TYPE of the card, being neither "enchant" nor "creature" but "Enchantment".
And where do RULES belong? Joining the RULES-text in the text-box, maybe?? So that would be the place to state which type of permanents is allowed to be enchanted (and which aren't).
Those rules used to define different subtypes of "enchant ___"-cards such as "enchant land", "enchant creature" and "enchant permanent" (the last one being neither of the first two sub-subtypes instead of both), which is absurd -- and worse than "Legend" or "Wall" carrying rules baggage.
So I'd bet there won't be any more cards that care about this subtype of the subtype "-Aura", but affect ALL Auras instead. These where quite confusing using the old template anyway, as "destroy target enchant creature" looks really similar to the completely different "destroy target enchantED creature". People I played with kept mixing those two up, when not reading the cards properly, letter by letter.
Oh -- I just realized that the change from the verb "enchant" to the noun enchantment is also in line with the change from the verb "summon" to the noun "creature". I mean it's not the "action-line" but the "type-line" after all.
I think you got it! Well done!
And I believe old cards will get errata to retain their functionality, but new ones will say stuff like "return target Aura to owner's hand" rather than "target enchant creature Aura" or "target Aura that can enchant (ONLY???) a creature" or "target Aura with enchant creature".
Maybe it's just me...
Sig banner by Xyre.
My MTG Blog (inactive)
GDS1 & GDS2 entrant. Former Rules Advisor & casual-level TO. Semi-lapsed player in general.
Although local makes alot of sense, it just doesnt sound very appealing if you what I mean................
______zyrakris's gemstone caverns thread \/\/\/
Wizards wants to clean up the type box.
Step 1:
So make it so that all enchantments have 'Enchantment' clearly written in their box.
We all agree that makes sense. How did they do this?
Step 2:
Well make enchant a keyword. Works great. The keyword can include 'target'
Lots of problems fixed. Think we all agree that this is good.
One new problem: there are cards that affect local enchantments differently. Now we need a way to recognize them.
Step 3:
Give them subtype Local
Now we can recognize that they are distinct amoung enchantments, while still being enchantments. We can search for the card type 'local' as well. Functionality is practically the same, but everything is clearer
However, local seems bland for flavor
Step 4:
Make 'Local' into 'Aura'
Fixes the flavor a bit. Also lets us search and affect the cards without reading their text box, just the type bar.
That last statement makes me wonder about another ability... Flying
Flying is now unique in magic. You have to read the text box to determine is something is flying/non flying.. everything else has stuff stated in the type line.. but I don't think they'll change anythign with flying, that would be too much I think..
Same with First strike, Trample, Vigilance...
EDIT: Also, a problem with some of the wordings people have proposed. A few have said, "This comes into play attached to target creature." That doesn't work, because it's only true when you play the card, not when it comes into play via something like Replenish. Then again, it's only reminder text; besides, this wouldn't be that massive of a rules change anyway.
Remember, kids: Never fight with Flashback, 'cause Flashback always wins.