x If you're looking for a specific comment, check the other printings as well.
Player Rating:
Community Rating: 4.579 / 5  (95 votes)
The player rating is the overall rating for the card taking into account all player rating votes.

Popular Comments
Hide Comments
Only show me comments rated:
12 >
Gotta love Oracle text simplification.
Posted By: Totema (10/11/2011 4:34:36 PM)


@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)


I love how wordy this is in the original print.
Posted By: herpdaderp (11/25/2010 11:27:09 PM)


Love the "until enchantment is discarded or game ends." Apparently they were afraid if the game ended with this in play, you would simply steal your opponent's creature forever.
Posted By: RedAtrocitus (2/19/2011 9:44:43 PM)


"Love the "until enchantment is discarded or game ends." Apparently they were afraid if the game ended with this in play, you would simply steal your opponent's creature forever."

With ante cards, it's not far-fetched that someone would make this mistake (or worse, knowingly rip naive kids off).
Posted By: scumbling1 (3/23/2011 6:42:24 PM)


While I agree that StP is better "removal", swords to plowshares IS countered by unsummon.
Calling this removal is a joke. A card that has an undesirable static effect on all players, marble titan for instance, won't stop doing his thing just because he switches sides. Stealing a squallmonger won't save your fliers either.
Posted By: kiseki (7/28/2011 3:19:13 PM)



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)


"The best removal spell in the game."

No. Not by a long shot. Swords to Plowshares costs a quarter the mana and isn't countered by Unsummon. That is one example. There are many others.
Posted By: Lyoncet (4/13/2011 7:09:52 PM)


"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)