Magic has long been associated with the power to solve problems and overcome obstacles. It is often portrayed as a force that can eradicate enchantments and break free from the grip of enchantment. However, the truth is that magic cannot completely eradicate enchantments. Enchantment is a form of magic that creates a powerful and lasting effect on someone or something. It is often used to create illusions, manipulate emotions, or control the actions of others. Enchantments can be incredibly strong and difficult to break, sometimes even beyond the capabilities of the most skilled and powerful magicians.
The specific rules of both spells apply, but the interaction is such that break enchantment trumps feeblemind.
The only exception to this If the change in controllers means that the enchantment now has an invalid target-- if it says Play only on a creature you control , for example--then it will be buried, just as any enchantment with an invalid target would be. If the effect comes from a permanent magic item, break enchantment does not remove the curse from the item, but it does free the victim from the item s effects.
Enchantments can be incredibly strong and difficult to break, sometimes even beyond the capabilities of the most skilled and powerful magicians. While magic may have the ability to weaken or partially disrupt an enchantment, it cannot completely eradicate it. Enchantments are typically woven into the fabric of reality, deeply ingrained in the very essence of the object or person they affect.
Enchantments - Phasing and Control
Возможно, адреса электронной почты являются анонимными для этой группы или вам требуется разрешение на просмотр адресов электронной почты ее участников, чтобы увидеть исходное сообщение.
In article <35C912. @Xnbnet.Xnb.Xca>,
Beautiful wrote:
>Q 1: If an enchantment is placed on a creature with phasing, does the
>enchantment get destroyed when it phases out?
No. There are special rules for local enchantments; they pay no
attention to the normal phasing schedule. Local enchantments always phase
out when the thing they're enchanting phases out; and they always phase in
when the thing they're enchanting phases in--and never phase in before
then.
To give an example: Let's say that I cast a Pacifism on your Shivan
Dragon. If something causes the Dragon to phase out during your turn, then
the Pacifism will automatically phase out. At the start of my next untap
phase, the Pacifism will not phase in--even though it's a phased-out card
that I controlled when it left play, and so would normally phase in at this
time--because the thing it's enchanting (the Dragon) hasn't yet phased in.
And at the start of your next untap phase, when the Dragon phases back in,
the Pacifism phases back in right along with it.
If for some reason the enchantment _cannot_ phase out--and the only
reason that could happen with the current cardset would be if Spatial Binding
had been used on it--then the enchantment will indeed get buried if the
thing it's enchanting phases out, since it now has an invalid target.
One other wrinkle that can come up because of this rule: If a local
enchantment somehow finds itself phased out without its target being phased
out along with it, then the enchantment will never phase back in--it will be
"stuck in phaseland" for the rest of the game. For example, this can happen
if I play an enchantment on a token creature, and the token creature then
phases out. The token goes to phaseland, and the enchantment goes right along
with it; but the token then immediately disappears from the game, because
tokens can't exist outside of play. So my enchantment is now in phaseland
without its target, and will be stuck there for the rest of the game.
>Q 2a and 2b: I can't remember the exact cards, but here's the
>situation. I have a creature in play that my opponent can't get rid
>of. He has a creature in play with the ability to gain control of a
>target enchanted creature. He places a Giant Strength on my creature so
>that it is enchanted, then taps his creature to steal it. As long as
>his creature remains tapped, he controls my creature. I don't have any
>untap spells, so I decide to destroy his tapped creature. First off,
>does destroying his creature return control of my creature to me?
>Secondly, if so, does my creature still have the enchantment that my
>opponent placed on it prior to stealing it?
Hmmm. I don't know of any card that matches that description. The
closest I can think of is Rootwater Matriarch--"Tap: Gain control of target
creature as long as that creature has any enchantments on it"--but that
ability doesn't require the Matriarch to stay tapped to maintain control.
This makes a big difference, because destroying the Matriarch wouldn't do
any good; the only thing that will stop the control effect is removing all
enchantments from the creature. (Well, causing the creature to leave play--
phasing it out, for example--will work too.) On the other hand, if it were
a tap-and-hold effect--if it were "Gain control of target creature as long
as that creature has any enchantments on it and Rootwater Matriarch remains
tapped"--then destroying the Matriarch _would_ cause the control effect to
end.
As for the other part of your question: There's no connection between
the controller of a creature and the controller of any enchantments on that
creature (with certain obvious exceptions, like Control Magic). Stealing
control of a creature will not give you control of any enchantments on the
creature, and losing control of the creature will not cause you to lose
control of any enchantments. So, even though you control the creature, the
Giant Strength will still be controlled by your opponent. But that doesn't
do your opponent much good, because he can't just decide to "turn off" the
Giant Strength's +2/+2; Giant Strength's ability is continuous--it doesn't
give the controller any choices. And, yes, the Giant Strength will still
be there; enchantments don't pop off just because the thing they're
enchanting changes controllers. (The only exception to this: If the
change in controllers means that the enchantment now has an invalid target--
if it says "Play only on a creature you control", for example--then it will
be buried, just as any enchantment with an invalid target would be.)
--
\o\ If you're interested in books and stories with transformation themes, \o\
/o/ please have a look at . Thanks! /o/
\o\ FC1.21:FC(W/C)p6arw A- C->++ D>++ H+ M>+ P R T++++ W** Z+ Sm RLCT \o\
/o/ a cmn++++$ d e++ f+++ h- i++wf p-- sm# /o/
Removing an enchantment completely would require unraveling and rewriting the very fabric of existence, an incredibly complex and nearly impossible task. Even the most experienced magicians recognize the limits of their powers when it comes to enchantments. They may be able to counteract some of the effects or create temporary shields, but ultimately, the enchantment remains intact. The lingering presence of the enchantment can continue to have an impact, potentially influencing actions and decisions long after the initial magic is cast. This does not mean that magic is powerless in the face of enchantment. There are techniques that magicians can employ to lessen the effects or protect against certain enchantments. However, these methods often involve finding alternative solutions or working around the enchantment, rather than completely eradicating it. In conclusion, it is important to understand that while magic is a powerful force, it cannot completely eradicate enchantments. Enchantments are deeply rooted in reality and have a lasting impact that cannot be easily undone. Magic can weaken or counteract the effects of an enchantment, but it cannot erase it entirely. This limitation serves as a reminder that even the most skilled and knowledgeable magicians have their limits, and that the power of enchantment should never be underestimated..
Reviews for "Embracing the enchantment of the unknown: why magic is essential to our growth"
1. John - 1/5
I found "Magic cannot eradicate the enchantment" to be incredibly dull and uninteresting. The story lacks any sort of depth or complexity, and the characters are flat and one-dimensional. The writing style is also very dry and uninspiring, making it difficult to become engaged in the story. Overall, I was extremely disappointed and would not recommend this book to others.
2. Sarah - 2/5
While "Magic cannot eradicate the enchantment" had an intriguing premise, I found the execution to be lacking. The pacing was slow and the plot felt disjointed, making it difficult to stay invested in the story. Additionally, the dialogue felt forced and unnatural, making it hard to connect with the characters. Although there were some interesting ideas sprinkled throughout, they were not enough to salvage the overall quality of the book. I would not recommend this to anyone looking for an engaging fantasy read.
3. Chris - 2/5
"Magic cannot eradicate the enchantment" started off promising, but it quickly lost my interest. The writing style was overly descriptive, bogging down the story with unnecessary details. The characters were also underdeveloped and lacked depth, making it difficult to care about their fates. Additionally, the plot seemed to meander without clear direction or purpose. Overall, I found this book to be a disappointment and struggled to finish it.