There are no comments yet for this card (or rating). Be the first!
So cheap. (Mana cost, not secondary market.)
Posted By:
azure_drake222222
(2/1/2013 7:08:50 PM)
Even if you count this as "removal", wouldn't Treachery or even Gilded Drake be better most of the time?
Posted By:
TheKazu
(1/1/2013 1:55:35 PM)
Whenever I see an old card with lots of rules text, I immediately see if the Oracle Text is shorter. If it isn't, I spend the next 10 minutes figuring out what the card actually does. See Necromancy and Animate Dead which to my understanding, do practically the same thing but with Animate Dead, the creature gets -1/0.
Posted By:
cheopsrule
(12/23/2012 6:21:56 PM)
i have this and i stole my sisters card and it let me take another creater DUBBLE BOGGE !!!!!!!!!
Posted By:
crazysnake111
(10/28/2012 12:46:22 PM)
@atemu1234
Yeah, to conform to internet lingo, this is strictly better than Mind Control.
But in essence, it's not exactly reverse power creep in that power creep resulted in MUCH stronger and more efficient creatures so stealing one in the environment now is thought to be worth 3UU. Technically you could say that Mind Control's CMC is higher as a result of power creep, just not the strength of the actual card itself.
At least, that's my reasoning with it.
Posted By:
forumbrowser
(6/10/2012 5:36:43 PM)
Cheaper than Mind Control. I'd say that's a win, right?
I mean, it's the same thing. Like, exactly. Reverse power creep?
Posted By:
atemu1234
(6/3/2012 6:10:44 PM)
Listen, listen, everyone arguing. I don't mean to take sides here. I don't think Control is Removal. However, I think that what Lyoncet was trying to say was that Unsummon counters this card even when one doesn't have it in their hand immediately when this card is first played. If one draws Unsummon at any time after this card is played, they can remove it. If one doesn't have Unsummon in their hand when Swords to Plowshares is played, they are SOL. But hey, at least they get some life, right? Hahaha...WRONG.
But aside, this is an excellent card. Quintessential Blue, well balanced, and very good. Green better have a Naturalize or a Beast Within if this is played against him.
4.5/5
Posted By:
gman92
(3/14/2012 6:15:38 AM)
@Kipsar - The "if destroyed" thing relates to the creature, not to Control Magic. The text is there to avoid the scenario where you steal your opponent's creature, he kills it, and you stick it in your graveyard, thereby keeping it after it's no longer enchanted by Control Magic. If the enchanted creature gets killed, it goes in it's owner's graveyard.
@Doaj - You control the ENCHANTED creature. "Enchant Creature" Aura spells do target a creature when they come into play, but Aura permanents "enchant" rather than "target" (rule 702.5a &rule 303.4a-h). Specifically (303.4b), the ENCHANTED creature is the one to which the Aura is attached at the time. If the Aura moves from one creature to another, it stops enchanting the first creature and starts enchanting the second, assuming both are legal - for example, a Crown of Thorns can't be moved onto a Carrion Feeder, because Carrion Feeder is black.
Posted By:
Mojo_the_White
(2/12/2012 6:58:49 AM)
"If destroyed, target creature is put in its owner's graveyard."
I'm playing dumb here but am I to understand that if Control Magic is destroyed then the creature it was enchanting goes into its owner's graveyard and NOT back into play under its owner's control, right?
Posted By:
Kipsar
(2/11/2012 4:19:53 AM)
I have a question: The card text says "You control target creature until enchantment is discarded or game ends." All well and dandy, but going by that text, Aura Finesse can move it to another creature, and then you'd have control of both. The enchantment wasn't discarded- nothing in the text implies you lose control of the original creature. Oracle says otherwise, but Oracle isn't always right. Anyone know the proper ruling on that?
Posted By:
Doaj
(10/23/2011 1:54:06 AM)