New Mechanic: Enchant Creatures

[GenericKen]

New mechanic: Enchant creatures.

212.4j Some local enchantments enchant multiple permanents. Unless otherwise specified, these local enchantments enchant two of the specified permanent type. The two permanents must be of the same type and must be controlled by the same player.

212.4k A local enchantment that enchantes multiple permanents has two targets when played. If either target is illegal, the spell is countered. If any of the enchanted permanents become illegal or no longer exist, the enchantment is put into its owner's graveyard. (This is a state-based effect. See rule 420.5d)


For the sake of this mechanic, I'm going to pretend that phasing doesn't exist. I think it would work out, with the phasing creature taking the enchantment with it and bringing it back in, but it's just a terrible mess then.



Examples:
Brotherhood - WW
Enchant Creatures
Enchanted creatures get +1/+2.
(crusade meets holy strength)

Soulgraft - 1BB
Enchant Creatures
When ~ leaves play, destroy enchanted creatures.

Winnowing Winds - 2R
Enchant Lands
Whenever either enchanted land becomes tapped, destroy the other enchanted land.

Akimbo Wings - U
Enchant Creatures
Enchanted creatures have flying.

Savage Bond - G
Enchant Creatures
Enchanted creatures have trample and "T: Regenerate other creatures enchanted by ~."


I probably shouldn't post all of these in the enchantment forum, and they're not exactly a cycle. Which ones you guys think should I post over there?


EDIT: Winnow's name.


More examples:

Blood Bond - 1G
Enchant Creatures
When ~ comes into play, put a +1/+1 counter on each enchanted creature.
G: Move a +1/+1 counter from one enchanted creature to the other.

Falsifying Claim - R
Enchant Creatures
When ~ comes into play, draw a card.
Enchanted creatures have "T: Change the target of target spell targeting this creature with another creature enchanted by ~."
"No, I'M Sparticus!"

Thought Clamp - U
Enchant Creatures
When ~ comes into play, draw a card.
1UU: Return ~ from your graveyard to your hand. Play this ability only during your upkeep.

[who is the pilot]

hmm. . .interesting way to shore up the strength of enchant permanents, probably the weakest card type in magic. . .wotc has been making efforts to strengthen these by allowing you to play them as instants, or allowing you to bounce them back to your hand, but this puts a whole new spin on things. . .i think winnow is really cool, although there is already a card by that name. . .one question: why not make it so the enchantment sticks around on the remaining permanent when the other enchanted permanent goes away?

[GenericKen]

If it hung onto the remaining creature, then a lot of "other enchanted <blah>" mechanics would make no sense.


Double-local enchantments would actually be more vulnerable and more conditional than normal local enchantments, since they hinge on two permanents being in play rather than one.

It's this added vulnerability that allows them to become more powerful (and self-preserving) without crossing over into broken or misey.

[Ad Infinitum]

For the sake of this mechanic, I'm going to pretend that phasing doesn't exist.

I wonder how many times R&D have wished they could say that.

[Eye of Shizo]

well...i must say that i am surprised to see that WotC hasn't made cards like these yet, while they still are printed in the Rulebook

As for the cards: The Winnow is cool, as you can destroy one of your opponents lands. Akimbo Wings is overpowered. 2 potentially heavy fliers for an extra U

Very interesting...but i need to see if this will ever be printed

[Risky]

It's a novel idea, one that perhaps deserves some more attention and tweaking.

[keldon]

well...i must say that i am surprised to see that WotC hasn't made cards like these yet, while they still are printed in the Rulebook


They ain't printed in the rulebook, those above are the chapter he needs to add to detail this mechanic...

212.4k A local enchantment that enchants multiple permanents has two targets when played. If either target is illegal, the spell is countered. If either enchanted permanent becomes illegal or no longer exists, the enchantment is put into its owner's graveyard. (This is a state-based effect. See rule 420.5d)

Your local enchantments can enchant just two permanents or any number? You say multiple, but then always use two as targets number...

Plus... phasing is not that a huge problem because on phasing resolution, the enchantment follows the permanent... when it phases back in, it resumes its original status, state based effects are checked and so on...

[Guesswork]

You've hit on what is probably my favorite design areas: local enchantments. Indeed, this would be a very novel way to bring them up out of the ghetto of unplayable card types. The idea of enchanting more than one permanent is going to throw some people off, but in the end, it's a simple and intuitive way to add a new dimension to the game. Very nice.

A few suggestions:

Your rule, 212.4k - you can simply say, "If any enchanted permanent becomes illegal or leaves play, etc..." this would put you in the clear for phasing, I believe.

Why don't you put a number in the type line? "Enchant Two Creatures", "Enchant Three Creatures", or, "Enchant One or Two Creatures". Then, it's never ambiguous how many creatures you can enchant, you can modify your rules about numbers, and you can make new cards that are designed to enchant creatures in larger numbers.

[Mana Geek]

While the idea is novel, this is even weaker than regular local enchantments - it is easy to pick on the weaker one. Maybe things will be different if you can choose the number of creatures to enchant.

Guesswork - This technically works, but it just sounds so weird...

[GenericKen]

Because they're weaker than local enchantments, they can afford to help protect the enchanted creature while doing other stuff without getting misey. And because they're more conditional, it's easier to make them cantrip. The Akimbo wings one, for example, is not strictly better than flight, since it requires *two* creatures be in play and either of the creatures being removed removes flight from the other.

Guess> Thing is, rule 420.5d says "420.5d A local enchantment that enchants an illegal or nonexistent permanent is put into its owner's graveyard."

Because a multi-local enchantment is still a local enchantment, it conventiently inheirits this rule. The k rule is mostly reminder and some clarification on the resolution of the spell.


The phasing question is not crippling one. If two creatures are enchanted and one has phasing, the phasing one simply takes the local enchantment and brings it back enchanting the two creatures; no rules conflict, just an inconvenient memory problem.

The problem is if both creatures have phasing on different turns, since creatures phase out before they phase in, and it becomes a terrible mess.

[keldon]

The problem is if both creatures have phasing on different turns, since creatures phase out before they phase in, and it becomes a terrible mess.

Still it's not that much trouble (though very clunky...) when one phases out, it phases out with the enchantment. On the following turn, the other phases out and simultaneously the former phases in with the enchantment (this action is simultaneous and does not use the stack). On the following upkeep, state based effects are checked and the enchantment is put in a graveyard due to the lack of one of the creatures.

[PhyrexianSurvivor]

A convenient way to remind players that exactly two permanents share the enchantment would be to use 'both' before you use 'enchanted creatures' or 'enchanted lands'. For example:

Shared Charge :2::r:
Enchant Creatures
Both enchanted creatures attack each turn if able.
As long as both enchanted creatures are attacking, they each get +3/+0.

[GenericKen]

I'm gonna post the stone-rain one and the second green one in the enchantments forum since almost nobody normal reads new mechanics, if it's alright w/ you mods.

Also, did someone in the CS not reply to this?

[Drakonis Mage]

Also, did someone in the CS not reply to this?I didn't. ;)

I'm not sure I like the idea of weaker yet stronger locals, but it seems to work out functionally.

[Provoke]

interesting, but i don't think it would see much more play then enchant creatures get now.