Aura vs Equipment
General forum
Posted on March 24, 2014, 12:18 a.m. by Fairseas
Which do you prefer?
I personally am a big fan of enchantment auras, but I do love the swords alot.
Epochalyptik says... #3
They each have advantages and disadvantages.
You only pay for an Aura once (no equip cost), but you can get two-for-oned by removal. They can also offer a wider range of abilities and effects, and they can be attached to opponents' permanents.
You have to pay for equipment twice (casting and equipping), but the equipment stays on the field and is moveable.
March 24, 2014 12:31 a.m.
I think that, much like Epochalyptik has stated, equipment comes with a bit more resiliency inherent to it not being destroyed when the equipped creature is destroyed. And that also leads to one of its potential downsides being that they generally cost more than their Aura brethren for having the same effect.
Now, depending on the build, either could be better. In something like EDH, especially, the path you choose can create wildly differing decks.
As an example, I'll link my Sigarda deck here and another sigarda deck here
My deck utilizes enchantments to fuel up Sigarda, Host of Herons . I chose them so that I could be a bit quicker in getting a kill, while getting key interactions by using cards like Argothian Enchantress and Umbra Mystic , as well as the "umbras" themselves.
Krayhaft can speak for himself as he might desire, but from what I've seen of his build he is utilizing equipment for the resiliency, generally stronger power, and interactions with key cards like Stoneforge Mystic and Stonehewer Giant .
Or maybe he just likes paying more for his cards than I do... ;P
ezra125 says... #2
It really depends on which specific cards you're talking about. In general, though, equipment tend to be better, since they stay on the battlefield after the creatures die, meaning they aren't card disadvantage.
March 24, 2014 12:28 a.m.