The Book of Gideon's Phalanx SPELL

[Aldin]

Originally Posted by Confred

That's now how it works in the father game at all though.

It would read:

or

I'm responding to the bit I bolded. I'm not sure how you mean that. An Enchantment Aura cast on an opponent's creature in MtG would have it's printed effect on the creature. So if we're calling this an Enchantment Aura, then that is exactly how it would function "in the father game" if I correctly took your meaning.

I guess the issue is a more general one in some ways. A question of 'once a spell card is played, who owns it?' Probably a good thing for Hasbro to clarify in a FAQ.

~Aldin, outcast

[Confred]

First, I typoed "Now" instead of "Not" and have edited my original post to reflect

But in Magic: the Gathering, you still control the enchantment. So for example, "Whenever enchanted creature deals damage, deal 1 damage to target creature." You control that enchantment and you choose the targets to deal that 1 damage to, not the owner of the creature.

Enchant Permanent
Creatures you control get +1/+1

In this case, the body the enchantment is on, or the controller of that body, is irrelevant. The control of the enchantment dictates where those +1's go.

The same I argue is true for this AotP enchantment.

[Aldin]

Maybe I just don't understand MtG well enough. Let's have an example. If I cast this on an opponent's creature...



...is your expectation that I would get to search my library when it died?

I think you might be right. And I think I just learned something about MtG. And I think that they were trying to strip away a layer of complexity here and have created a question in the minds of anyone familiar with the way it all works in MtG.

I would favor something similar to your second proposed wording, and strongly suspect that was the intent.

~Aldin, who needs to re-read the rules to see if they anywhere clarify ownership of spells after they are cast

[Confred]

That's actually exactly correct. If you were to enchant an opponent's creature with that spell, and that creature died (probably due to the forced attack into your bigger wall - good combo!) you would get the search.

Blue has cards like this:
Enchant opponent's creature
When enchanted creature dies, draw three cards.

The idea is that it reigns the opponent creature in. Sure it doesn't say "Enchanted creature cannot attack or block" but it sure does incentivize the creature not to.

[Hogg]

I know the art and name are just supposed to be for fun but they do imply that the spell is supposed to be played on your own planeswalker. Also the point value on the card is pretty low and I think it would be higher if it were a more versatile spell.

[Colorcrayons]

I am completely with Confred on this.

On the subject of name and art, that's one way to look at it.
Another way, is that any white creatures you control that are attacking the opponent's planeswalker are part of Gideon's Phalanx...
Most of the time, flavor text/art/name to theme a card is irrelevant since it's the design of the card that tells the actual story.

[weebaer]

As a MtG player (eons ago) I would definitely agree with confred. It is exactly how the card game is played. If this game did not have "Magic the Gathering" in it's title I would assume what @Aldin suggested is correct, but it is Magic. Why would they suddenly decide to change the rules?

I feel this greatly enhances Gideon's struggling in the current meta.

Stoke the Flames enchantment only furthers Confred's point. "Stoke the Flames can enchant only a Planeswalker you control." If this were the case with Gideon's Phalanx, it would have been specified.