Custom Cards forum

Posted on Dec. 2, 2019, 5:57 a.m. by uJar_Gamer


Enchantment - Aura Curse

Enchant Player

If one or more counters would be placed on target Planeswalker enchanted player controls, that many loyalty counters minus one are placed on it instead.

uJar_Gamer says... #2

This would be a great card to thwart the Plainswalker.. there would be a lot of possibilities in it's development.

More examples it could read; put a -?/-? counter on it for each loyalty in it's first loyalties ability cost etc. etc. or for every creature on the battlefield with a converted manna cost of two or less.

It would be a fun way to shut down some of our more broken Plainswalkers, Ugin, Bolas, Karn, Narset, Oko etc~

December 2, 2019 6:06 a.m.

Lame_Duck says... #3

I think modifying loyalty is an reasonably interesting design space but there's a few issues with this card. Firstly, a minor thing but they're called Planeswalkers; plainswalkers would be things like Zodiac Rooster .

Secondly, as designed, this card wouldn't actually do anything. The Planeswalker would have to already be on the battlefield to be a target for this Aura, so it would never trigger. Also, there's no such thing as negative loyalty counters, it would have to be worded as a replacement effect that changed the Planeswalker to add fewer loyalty counters when it entered. I'm not actually sure how you would have to phrase it for it to make sense in the rules.

Thirdly, I'm not sure this is sufficiently powerful that players would choose it over a less narrow removal card like Bedevil or Conclave Tribunal or something.

Finally, I don't understand why you added the exile replacement, it just seems to make the card more complicated without meaningfully changing its design.

December 2, 2019 6:45 a.m.

Lame_Duck says... #4

As far as wording the card to make sense in the rules, I think something like this would work:

"Enchant player

If a Planeswalker would enter the battlefield under enchanted player's control with one or more loyalty counters, it enters the battlefield with that many minus two loyalty counters instead. Then sacrifice Powerless."

December 2, 2019 7:07 a.m. Edited.

shadow63 says... #5

I'm very confused with how this card is meant to work

December 2, 2019 2:59 p.m.

uJar_Gamer says... #6

I did word it wrong Lame_Duck. I meant to write it as the target was already on the battlefield and not "entering." Thanks for the valid feedback and it was just an idea.

December 2, 2019 4:09 p.m.

Gidgetimer says... #7

How is this different than Shock ing a Planeswalker? Like I am confused how this is supposed to work because you can remove 2 counters from a PW by just doing 2 damage to it. Are you just wanting the typing on the card to be an enchantment instead of an instant?

December 2, 2019 5:10 p.m.

uJar_Gamer says... #8

yeah it is meant to be an enchantment and I am not trying to perfect a card it was just an idea and suggestions are cool and interesting, you can make up your own premise anyway you feel creative.

December 2, 2019 5:22 p.m.

uJar_Gamer says... #9

Funkydiscogod that was precisely what I was trying to get at. I get these ideas, however, I will at times fail in explaining them properly. It is feedback like this I was hoping on receiving for ideas around this so thank you~

December 3, 2019 2:41 a.m.

Tzefick says... #10

I think it's problematic that the effect is static and can effectively halt a large number of planeswalkers, who will never increase in loyalty, and it's on an enchantment, which is hard to remove for many colors.

It would seem more fair if it was an enchantment that functions like a one-time Prison Term and can be attached to a singular target.

Something like



Whenever a planeswalker would enter the battlefield under an opponent's control, you may have Powerless become an enchantment - aura with "Enchant planeswalker" and attach it to that planeswalker as it enters the battlefield.

If one or more loyalty counters would be placed on enchanted planeswalker, that many minus one are placed on it instead.

The wording might be a little off on the entry-attachment, as I don't know if it could feasibly attach before the planeswalker is actually on the battlefield and thus cannot reduce the amount placed on them initially - if not then have it remove a loyalty counter as it attaches to that planeswalker - as planeswalker abilities are sorcery speed, there's no real difference. The second paragraph can stand as it is, completely irrelevant until it becomes an aura, similar to how the bestow creatures from Theros was worded.

The general idea is that the controller chooses when the enchantment saps onto a planeswalker and it gimps that planeswalker alone instead of an entire player. The opponent can cast another copy to get rid of the gimped original or they can cast other planeswalkers that wont get gimped (by that same enchantment).

If you want to spice it up, add Flash to the card and it becomes a counter measure rather than a hose-on-a-stick.

December 3, 2019 3:06 p.m.

uJar_Gamer says... #11

The idea that this could be a creature is cool, however, the idea that it is an enchantment that is difficult to remove I almost like even better. I noticed how broken it would be so I nurfed it a little changing the wording to "Target." Shutting down all players plainswalkers would be extremely broken. your feedback Tzefick still makes room for more alterations and also sparks an idea for a creature based version of the card. thanks for your input~

December 3, 2019 3:56 p.m.

uJar_Gamer says... #12

another thing a two drop is way too broken I think is more like it and would seem a lot more realistic for an enchantment this powerful.

December 3, 2019 4:02 p.m.

uJar_Gamer says... #13

I am curious though as to once the loyalty counter is put on would the planeswalkler still get the trigger off of the loyalty before the minus counter ruling takes effect? What do you guys think? I would say it does but then the minus is applied right afterwards.

December 3, 2019 7:19 p.m.

Gidgetimer says... #14

"I am curious though as to once the loyalty counter is put on would the planeswalkler still get the trigger off of the loyalty before the minus counter ruling takes effect?" You seem to have some misconceptions about how loyalty abilities function based on this question.

Loyalty abilities are activated abilities and adding or removing loyalty counters is a cost. You would simply put one less counter on each time you activate a plus ability. The ability would be put on the stack and resolve as normal afterward.

There is no reason to enchant a player with your current wording of the card. The way you have it written you would need to choose a target to get less counters and you have no way to change the target at a later time. This means that it would function exactly the same if you simply made it an "Enchant Planeswalker" aura. You also seem to be super hung up on exiling the card instead of putting it in a graveyard. This is something that usually only happens on cards that could be easily abused if they were allowed to go to the graveyard. Do you think that this card is sufficiently abusable to merrit the extra rules text?

I would be more a fan of changing the replacement effect on the current iteration to a trigger. You could then get around it with some Teferi, Temporal Archmage and The Chain Veil shenanigans, but it would be the same in most scenarios. I would also make it apply to all abilities. If we are wanting a repeatable effect we could do something like:



: ~ becomes an Aura with Enchant Planeswalker. Attach it to target Planeswalker. It is no longer an Aura if it is not attached to a Planeswalker.

When a loyalty ability of enchanted Planeswalker is activated remove a loyalty counter from it.

Removing the last sentence of the activated ability could make it so that if the PW it is on ever dies the enchantment would also go to the graveyard. You could also reword the card so that you would be unable move it around if you think moving it is too strong.

December 3, 2019 10:24 p.m.

uJar_Gamer says... #15

Gidgetimer thanks again for the feedback- regarding the ruling that is what I thought. over thinking it I guess and I do understand how stack works. made some more changes according to your input and it is looking pretty good so far~

December 3, 2019 10:48 p.m.

Please login to comment