Edit: Propaganda, if you want to be color constant
HuntedWumpusMustDie
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(2 votes)
wait... common? explain...
achilleselbow
★★★★☆ (4.7/5.0)(9 votes)
I'll explain: you see, back then Wizards was actually trying to make a game instead of just trying to rip you off as much as possible, so commons and rares were at about the same power level. Is your mind completely blown?
InternetNinjacy
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(1 vote)
I agree with the Propaganda comments, This + Propaganda controls the heck out of the board. They can barely play creatures, but even when they do, they can't attack very often.
Kryptnyt
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(2 votes)
Most enchantments like this are dual-edged swords, this one however leaves you alone!
THalbrook
★★★☆☆ (3.0/5.0)(1 vote)
This needs a modern printing, perhaps in white.
Robface
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(2 votes)
Wow, something like this at common? I can imagine it was incredibly obnoxious in drafts at the time.
Leitmotiv
★★★★★ (5.0/5.0)(3 votes)
Why haven't they released this for MTGO? Ridiculous
Comments (12)
Edit: Propaganda, if you want to be color constant
Its kinda hard to explain the face people make when they pay
Is it functional errata that they just have to cast a creature spell now and it can be countered or whatever?
Or did it always mean the same thing and they just threw in the word "successfully" for the heck of it to cause unnecessary debates?