enchant permanent - stopping triggers

[rvs]

This is just to see if it's possible to do this, and if there is a correct way to word it.

[NAME]
1WW
Enchant Permanent
Triggered abilities on enchanted permanent do not trigger at any time during the game as long as [NAME] is enchanting it.

The last past (as long ... it) is on there to indicate this isn't definite. If the enchantment is removed, the effect stops. I'm not sure it's needed, but you can never be too clear in a first attempt. So, is this possible?

[rvs]

current wording:

[NAME]
1WW
Enchant Permanent
As long as [NAME] is enchanting it, triggered abilities on enchanted permanent can't trigger. Any player may discard a card to ignore this ability until end of turn.

[Puschkin]

I am not sure if the wording is okay but I know that this card should never be added. I mean, at that mana you could play an Aura of Silence which would be plain out better to shut down opposing enchantments. That means, if this card would ever be used, it will be in a very stupid combo, where you skip one half of a card (usually the negative part). ANd when it doesn't result into a stupid/broken combo it will produce rules headaches since you just skip parts of cards that were there to balance things out or that were needed to handle certain situations.

It is okay to mess with certain areas of the rules but I think there is a line one should not cross in order to not get silly (Unglued) or rules laywerish (Waylay loophole, Opalessence-Humility interaction, weird tricks with Stasis such as the Wall of Roots-Magma Mine trick when it was legal). This card has potential for both.

[rvs]

this only stops triggers from actually triggering Mark, not continuous effects or any of the examples you just mentioned. And since it's an enchantment itself, it's usually easy to remove, and can only be played on sorcery speed (unless ofcourse, you start using that green enchantment from masques or something!). I don't see the problem.

[Dr. Sylvan]

I also don't see a problem with this type of effect. Since in most cases it's better to simply destroy something, this should be costed very aggressively, probably two mana. Compare its effectiveness to Vindicate, noting that most cards don't have triggered abilities. I wouldn't take it down to one mana, though, since it actually has the upside of stopping Masticore's upkeep cost.

Have you considered making it Equipment with a white Equip cost? For some reason I hate the card disadvantage of local enchantments

[Matt]

This seems like an especially magical thing, so I think enchantment is more appropriate than equipment.

Also, the concern is not a power level one, but one of rules interactions and ease-of-play.

[rvs]

I think ease of play is ok. It's fairly straightforward. Ofcourse, the rules are an issue. It seems to cover it quite well, so I'm just wondering if anyone sees anything that isn't covered.

[stijndon]

I agree with Pusckin, however. Aura of Silence is way better than this, so this would only get used in attempts to break stuff, and I ain't talking 'bout chairs.

[rvs]

how is Aura of Silence better? THE CARDS ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. They only similarity they share is the CC and permanent type.

[Jacob Orlove]

I like this idea, but I keep thinking that it must completely break the rules somehow. I guess it's no worse than stifle on a scpeter, though., so it should be fine.

[Matt]

Well, it totally removes cumulative upkeep costs from a permanent.

It combos EXTREMELY well with Stasis.

It also creates a lock with Soul Echo.

What if it was changed to, "Triggered abilities of enchanted permanent can't trigger unless any player pays 2 for each" and lowered the cost?

[Jacob Orlove]

What about if we made it non-upkeep triggered abilities? Or is that what this was supposed to do?

[Dr. Sylvan]

Maybe I don't understand the rules right, but it just occurred to me that this might stop cumulative upkeep, which could be a very bad thing, since a whole bunch of cards rely on that drawback.

Making it only stop non-unkeep triggers would kinda defeat the purpose, though.

[rvs]

hmm good point. This could be insane with Stasis. Maybe Matt's solution is the best yet, with the mana payment. It would still be cool with Stasis though

[Jacob Orlove]

make people discard a card to have the triggers trigger. That solves the stasis issue.

[rvs]

ok, is this the best way to word it?

[Matt]

"As long as [NAME] is enchanting it, triggered abilities on enchanted permanent can't trigger. Any player may discard a card to ignore this ability until end of turn."

[rvs]

anyone got any good names for this?

[rvs]

some sort of "up" to get a name for this baby. I'm seriously stuck, but it would be too bad to let the idea die down, at least, that's what I think.

[Jebus]

My only problem with this is that there is no way for the Enchanted Permanent's Beginning of Upkeep triggers to trigger.

[Matt]

Since the discard ability isn't an activated ability, could it be done in the untap step (thus allowing beginning of upkeep triggers to trigger)?

[Jebus]

Since the discard ability isn't an activated ability, could it be done in the untap step (thus allowing beginning of upkeep triggers to trigger)?

No.  Going by precedent (Lost in Thought) the ability can only be played when you have priority.

[rvs]

Could a next turn wording be implemented instead of the current until end of turn wording? That would allow for any ability to trigger during the next turn after using the discard. I'm just afraid it'll be messy though, and kind of tedious in practical play to use.

[Jacob Orlove]

Could a next turn wording be implemented instead of the current until end of turn wording? That would allow for any ability to trigger during the next turn after using the discard. I'm just afraid it'll be messy though, and kind of tedious in practical play to use.

That would probably have to involve the addition and removal of counters, which is just awful. I think the current wording is about as good as it's going to get.

[rvs]

ok, let's just pass the verdict then: is this acceptable enough? If one of the mods disagrees, then that's fair enough, otherwise, I'll keep brainstorming for a good name.

[Matt]

What about this wording:

"Whenever a triggered ability of enchanted permanent is put on the stack, counter it unless any player discards a card from his or her hand."

It's kind of annoying in that it uses the countering mechanic as opposed to making a blanket rule (which is far more white) but it would let "beginning of upkeep" triggers trigger.

[Jebus]

What about this wording:

"Whenever a triggered ability of enchanted permanent is put on the stack, counter it unless any player discards a card from his or her hand."

It's kind of annoying in that it uses the countering mechanic as opposed to making a blanket rule (which is far more white) but it would let "beginning of upkeep" triggers trigger.

You could try a replacement effect.

If a triggered abity of enchanted permanent would be put on the stack, unless a player discards a card, instead it doesn't."

[Matt]

That works too. It also might solve problems with two of these enchanting each other (can that ever happen? like, off a Replenish or something?)

[Jacob Orlove]

That works too. It also might solve problems with two of these enchanting each other (can that ever happen? like, off a Replenish or something?)

Local enchantments can never enchant each other.

[Jebus]

That works too. It also might solve problems with two of these enchanting each other (can that ever happen? like, off a Replenish or something?)

Local enchantments can never enchant each other.

This is incorrect.  Local Enchantment's can Enchant other Local Enchantments, provided that the Local Enchantment allows it.

For example, I can Confiscate your Spirit Link.