that's a really weird card. and according to the oracle, you get to "return" enchantments you control to your hand. is it only a misguiding de***ion, or are you indeed able to get your opponent's enchantments into your hand?
Deathtamoor
★★★★☆ (4.5/5.0)(2 votes)
I have read the oracle over and over this still doesn't make sense to me. This is one situation where I would need to call over a judge just to figure out what this card does.
Twigster
★★★★☆ (4.0/5.0)(5 votes)
Here's what this card does:
Return to your hand all enchantments you both own and control: - this means put into your hand all enchantments in play that are both currently under your control, and that you brought with you to the magic game. All Auras you own attached to permanents you control: - take any enchantment that's attached to a permanant you control and put it into your hand. And all Auras you own attached to attacking creatures your opponents control: - if your opponent has declared any creatures as attackers and the combat phase has not yet ended, take all enchantments attached to these creatures that you brought with you to the game of magic, and put them into your hand. Then destroy all other enchantments you control: - any enchantment that is under your control and that has not been returned to your hand by the above effects gets put into the graveyard. All other Auras attached to permanents you control: - any enchantment attached to a creature you control that you didnt bring with you to the magic game (eg an Opponents enchantment), get put into the graveyard.
And all other Auras attached to attacking creatures your opponents control: - if your opponent has declared any creatures as attackers and the combat phase has not yet ended, take all enchantments still attached to these creatures and put them into the graveyard.
Rainyday2012
★★★☆☆ (3.8/5.0)(4 votes)
This has to be the most overly complicated Magic card I have ever seen. And it wasn't even simple back in the day, no sir, it was wordy from day one.
Zinniz
★★★☆☆ (3.0/5.0)(2 votes)
OK. no Mode, you cannot "return" enchantments your opponent owns but you control to your hand because the only enchantments you control that you can return are ones you also own. this card IS wordy but actually is not too complicated. when this spell resolves every enchantment (that goes for auras too) youve played that are on your battlefield return to your hand. then return all auras you played on enemy creatures thre attacking to your hand. then destroy all other auras on attacking creatures, plus any enchantments on your side. really the confusing part is where non-attacking creatures your opponent get to keep all auras attached and not destroyed. a very nice card, amazing at 1 mana and the fact that playing it at sorcery speed doesnt suck is very helpfull too. i give it 4 stars. you guys would too if the text made sense to you. this card destroys enchantment control and can save your enchantment control in a pinch, for 1 mana.
In short, this clears the board of all enchantments you control and all enchanments on stuff you control. If you do it during an opposing combat, it also hits all enchantments on attacking creatures. Of all these, they're bounced unless they would be bounced to someone else's hand (because they own it), in which case they are just destroyed.
I guess the idea was that it worked on "your side of the board", and enemy creatures were on your side of the board during combat. This falls apart in modern times during multiplayer.
Anyway, basically only useful as defense against enemy Auras. It's a mere though, so if your group uses lots of Auras on you, it'll be useful. Also a way to get rid of enemy Auras on their own creatures that shroud it up to avoid your basic Disenchant/Naturalize.
Guest57443454
★★★☆☆ (3.2/5.0)(2 votes)
One of the most wordy cards ever created, a nice way to remove those pesky Pacifism type effects...which is the only use I could see...
izzet_guild_mage
★★★★☆ (4.8/5.0)(2 votes)
Okay, so they made a really wordy card to take out auras on your stuff, and as a "cost" it bounces all of your auras...sort of. Seems...too conditional. Certainly not worth the headache of explaining it to your opponent :/
Rainyday2012, it's not complicated. I'll translate: "Pay one white, waste your time and a card slot in your library."
Kryptnyt
★★★★☆ (4.7/5.0)(3 votes)
5/5. A card with so much unnecessary flavor that no one will ever use it, even though its not an awful card itself.
merigold
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
I could see this being useful in EDH against Zur. I also like it for my Uril the Miststalker EDH deck, as I get to return a lot of enchantments to my hand, cast them again and draw cards for it, thanks to the various enchantresses...
bijart_dauth
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
the last 2 clauses are really the only uses. Destroy all those pesky umbra's on your enemies Gnarlid and unpasify your creatures. But its just too sercumstantial.
vishanti
★★★★☆ (4.5/5.0)(2 votes)
This card has a very limited number of decks in which it can be useful, but it's not that bad when used with something like Rise of the Hobgoblins or Shape of the Wiitigo
BaneSlayerKirby
★★★★☆ (4.8/5.0)(2 votes)
This is actually a good, or at least usable, card... use it in an enchantress deck to go bonkers.
JaredTheTwitch
★★★★☆ (4.5/5.0)(1 vote)
The original wording is actually a lot clearer than the oracle wording. First off all enchantments that you control, including auras you control, are removed from the board. If there are any attacking creatures, auras attached to those creatures are removed as well. Then, out of all those enchantments that were removed, the ones you owned are returned to your hand and the others are destroyed.
The reason the Oracle wording exists is due to the removal of auras that you don't own from the permanent they enchanted. Assuming the aura is indestructible, it is unclear if it reattaches to the creature.
The Oracle wording exists to specifically mention only those auras and enchantments that you own because only those are going back to your hand. The rest then get destroyed, except for the indestructible ones which don't move around or reattach to anything at all.
The Oracle wording is harder to understand unless you realize where the original card was coming from.
Also, this card isn't on MTG:O as of 10/13/2011.
Radagast
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
Ugh... this thing is confusing and wordy - a lot of work for not much gain.
Elaedyn
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
Guys, this card is amazing in EDH. If youre running Zur it's a perfect defense for your enchantments against wipers. If you're running against Zur its a non targeted enchantment that kills his advantage. If you play with or against enchant decks regularly you really should consider this card. Easily a 4 out of 5.
kiseki
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
This should have said "Return all enchantments that you own to your hand. Then destroy all enchantments on permanents you control and on creatures attacking you." That would have been most of the functionality with less than half the words.
But what is the value in achieving a functionally identical oracle text on a card like this? Even the Oracle writers did not succeed.
For example, I have a creature, which you have confiscated. I confiscate your confiscate, and then cast this spell. What happens? Printed Method: My enchantment will be bounced, yours will be destroyed. Oracle Method: My enchantment will be bounced, but then I will lose control of the creature, and yours will not be destroyed.
So weird and complicated for one mana, and yet so useless. I can see it having some use in an Enchantress deck, sure, but ultimately this is an aura-hoser, and the fact is that auras don't need hosing.
Early cards had a weird obsession with hosing cards that didn't need hosing -- there was a ton of anti-wall cards, too. And no walls that saw competitive play.
Kariuko
☆☆☆☆☆ (0.0/5.0)
Can be used as a combat trick to confuse your opponents. "It says that I get to keep all of my enchantments and destroys all of yours", "oh, ok..."
Comments (27)
and according to the oracle, you get to "return" enchantments you control to your hand. is it only a misguiding de***ion, or are you indeed able to get your opponent's enchantments into your hand?
Return to your hand all enchantments you both own and control:
- this means put into your hand all enchantments in play that are both currently under your control, and that you brought with you to the magic game.
All Auras you own attached to permanents you control:
- take any enchantment that's attached to a permanant you control and put it into your hand.
And all Auras you own attached to attacking creatures your opponents control:
- if your opponent has declared any creatures as attackers and the combat phase has not yet ended, take all enchantments attached to these creatures that you brought with you to the game of magic, and put them into your hand.
Then destroy all other enchantments you control:
- any enchantment that is under your control and that has not been returned to your hand by the above effects gets put into the graveyard.
All other Auras attached to permanents you control:
- any enchantment attached to a creature you control that you didnt bring with you to the magic game (eg an Opponents enchantment), get put into the graveyard.
And all other Auras attached to attacking creatures your opponents control:
- if your opponent has declared any creatures as attackers and the combat phase has not yet ended, take all enchantments still attached to these creatures and put them into the graveyard.
I guess the idea was that it worked on "your side of the board", and enemy creatures were on your side of the board during combat. This falls apart in modern times during multiplayer.
Anyway, basically only useful as defense against enemy Auras. It's a mere
your creatures. But its just too sercumstantial.
The reason the Oracle wording exists is due to the removal of auras that you don't own from the permanent they enchanted. Assuming the aura is indestructible, it is unclear if it reattaches to the creature.
The Oracle wording exists to specifically mention only those auras and enchantments that you own because only those are going back to your hand. The rest then get destroyed, except for the indestructible ones which don't move around or reattach to anything at all.
The Oracle wording is harder to understand unless you realize where the original card was coming from.
Also, this card isn't on MTG:O as of 10/13/2011.
But what is the value in achieving a functionally identical oracle text on a card like this? Even the Oracle writers did not succeed.
For example, I have a creature, which you have confiscated. I confiscate your confiscate, and then cast this spell. What happens?
Printed Method: My enchantment will be bounced, yours will be destroyed.
Oracle Method: My enchantment will be bounced, but then I will lose control of the creature, and yours will not be destroyed.
This card is one of the few to benefit from powercreep. An unloved, unused, joke/trade bait of the classical era has finally found use.
Early cards had a weird obsession with hosing cards that didn't need hosing -- there was a ton of anti-wall cards, too. And no walls that saw competitive play.