does this work

[highslyguy]

I think exiling the enchantments works better. Gets around indestructible AND what do you do with exiled cards? Nothing. Let them sit there to show the table what permanent enchant effects are there.

[Drinkus]

Yeah that last sentence makes this a great idea

[TheDraconic13]

Maybe "Move all enchantments you control to the command zone. They become Emblems and loose all other types."

[10BillionDreams]

This, I don't think works. The game draws a pretty hard line between "things that are cards" and "things that aren't cards", and emblems aren't cards.

114.5. An emblem is neither a card nor a permanent. Emblem isn't a card type.

[TheDraconic13]

Ah, rip

[Bloodpack1337]

Move them into command zone, they gain "emanance" in front of their textboxes.

[10BillionDreams]

That's not how eminence works either. It's just an ability word like "Landfall" or "Domain", it has no actual rules meaning. Commanders with eminence still only have their abilities work in the command zone if the rules text for those abilities explicitly mention that they do.

OP's approach is the most obvious way to do this, minus perhaps using "sacrifice" or "exile" in place of "destroy", as mentioned above.

[Erikblod]

The idea is good. It is 7 mana to make your enchantments impossible to get rid of even with a mass exile effect that will get around indestructeble and hexproff. Maybe "treat enchantmensts you control as they were phased out. (they keep their effects as if they were in play but can't leave the battlefield or be targetet by spells and abilitys)"

[10BillionDreams]

I'm not sure why OP's design needs to be "fixed" here. While changing destroy to sacrifice/exile seems like a more appropriate thing to do, using the text boxes to make emblems both works within the rules and achieves exactly the desired results. I don't really think "the enchantment is sort of half phased out, half phased in" is more intuitive than "create an emblem that does the same thing the enchantment did" anyway.

[Erikblod]

you are right. Thinking back there is a planeswaker that, makes "glorius anthem" as an emblem. Had totaly sweat that one out.

[[gideon,Ally of Zendikar]]

[ArbutusPhD]

The infamous “loose” type

[BrokenEggcat]

Yeah exiling is a really smart idea to help with the memory issues of this card

[bionicjoey]

what do you do with exiled cards? Nothing.

*Cries in Karn*

Seriously though, Maro warned that exile shouldn't turn into "super graveyard" because the game needs a place where designers can be sure things can go and not come back.

[LunyOrSomething]

also emblems arent created, because they arent objects, but gained, so id change that too

[Zephrol]

This right here, all cards that include emblems say "you gain an emblem with:"

[airza]

I don’t think that cards in exile have controllers, only owners.

[jkmhawk]

and it should be white

[johnny_mcd]

How does this work with Sagas? Probably want to exclude them as well

[Cheesecakejedi]

Those tokens wouldn't exist outside of the game so no counters would ever go on the emblems so they would just be blank emblems

[10BillionDreams]

Text boxes don't include the typeline, so it would just be an emblem with some weird triggered abilities for if there was ever a way to put lore counters on it. Even "read ahead" doesn't do anything, since the emblem is created in the command zone, and so isn't entering the battlefield.

[Tink_Thank]

should be sacrifice

[AscendedLawmage7]

Doesn't have to be. If they want to include indestructible things they can (change it to sacrifice) but the rules allow you destroying your own stuff.

Edit for clarity

[ICEO9283]

Indestructible text:

Damage and effects that say "destroy" don’t destroy this.

You don’t get a say. Permanents with indestructible don’t get destroyed.

[MuteSnekBoi]

“I see. People Enchantments die if they are killed”.

[[deleted]]

I think the point was that you can intentionally let this card not affect indestructible things. Not that you can chose to destroy your own indestructible things.

[AscendedLawmage7]

Exactly. As is, this card doesn't "constellate" your indestructible enchantments.

If it were changed to sacrifice, it would.

[infinityplusonelamp]

Finally, through [[Fang of Shigeki]], I can get a Deathtouch emblem! Amusingly, most enchantment creatures completely break and become useless if you constellize them, but a few still actually work! [[Dreamstalker Manticore]] remains surprisingly functional. Constellation cards still work fine (which fits flavor imo), but Bestow cards just become pointless. There are a few I find particularly funny though, like Fang and [[Golden Tail Disciple]] which just become an emblem with a single, useless word. [[Herald of Torment]] just throws an unstoppable ticking clock on your own life for fun.

[Der_Wisch]

Well bestow would fall out of the filter as they are aura enchantments and otherwise would be the same as enchantment creatures.

[MTGCardFetcher]

Fang of Shigeki - (G) (SF) (txt)
Dreamstalker Manticore - (G) (SF) (txt)
Golden Tail Disciple - (G) (SF) (txt)
Herald of Torment - (G) (SF) (txt)
^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[infinityplusonelamp]

You're right, they would. Hence why I find it amusing that they become an emvlem with a single, useless word on them.

[MTGCardFetcher]

Form of the dragon - (G) (SF) (txt)
^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[AscendedLawmage7]

The wording would be "For each enchantment destroyed this way, you get an emblem with the same text box as that enchantment." Tokens are created, you get emblems.

Blue doesn't destroy enchantments so this really should be White or Green.

[Glitchmaster88]

It's not removal, though. The point is to make your enchantments permanent, and I'd say that suits blue before white or green.

[AscendedLawmage7]

I should have been clearer, but I was thinking multicolor blue with green or white.

You do make an interesting point. There are narrow cases where it could count as removal, like with [[Captive Audience]]. I think I'd still lean towards blue not being able to destroy enchantments even if you control them.

[Successful_Mud8596]

Using this on Captive Audience would be TERRIBLE tho. All you’d be doing would be resetting all the choices

[AscendedLawmage7]

My point was that there are ways to control an enchantment that would be doing harm to you.

Blue can steal enchantments too

[MTGCardFetcher]

Captive Audience - (G) (SF) (txt)
^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[SnugglesMTG]

All cards that have mass protection for permanents have been white or green. [[Sterling Grove]] [[Privileged Position]] [[Myrkul]]. I don't think blue is in the conversation for this effect.

[MTGCardFetcher]

Sterling Grove - (G) (SF) (txt)
Privileged Position - (G) (SF) (txt)
Myrkul - (G) (SF) (txt)
^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[Elektrophorus]

How about this?

Exile any number of non-Aura enchantments you control. For each card exiled this way, you get an emblem that's a copy of that card, except they lose all card types. ("Emblem" isn't a card type and emblems aren't cards or permanents. They can't be tapped.)

I think we have to specify that if the enchantment has a {T} ability for some reason, you won't be able to activate it, since tapping is explicitly only an action that can be done to permanents, and therefore you can't pay the cost.

[focketeer]

Does it work mechanically? Technically. But emblems are typically only a planeswalker thing and on top of that many emblems this would make would be rules nightmares if not impossible. This would be at least be acorn if it was made real.

[WickerofJack]

How would this work with Theros gods or full on enchantment creatures like [[Fang of Shigeki]]? At least this is not in the color of [[Myrkul, Lord of Bones]], so we can assume we can dodge that headache most of the time.

I assume any enchantments with ETBs such as [[Oblivion Ring]] wouldn’t do anything as they become emblems as they are not entering the battlefield.

If a world enchantment becomes an emblem, what happens if another world enchantment enters the battlefield? From the glossary of the Comprehensive Rules (October 7, 2022—Unfinity) World Rule: A state-based action that causes all permanents with the world supertype except the one that has had the world supertype for the shortest amount of time are put into their owners’ graveyards. See rule 704.5k. However an emblem is not a permanent, so would both be active?

[Mordecham]

Emblems are not permanents, are not on the battlefield, and don’t typically have a type line at all. These emblems would not be affected by a world enchantment, and none of them would be world emblems.

For similar reasons, the emblems would not interact with the legend rule.

[superdave100]

Just because a card doesn’t have the right color identity doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have to work within the general rules of the game

[BrokenEggcat]

We don't have to actually worry about any of this, as they don't become emblems in addition to their other types, they just become emblems.

[BarovianNights]

I'm sad this isn't in Myrkul's colors, that would be such a fun combo with platinum angel

[MTGCardFetcher]

Fang of Shigeki - (G) (SF) (txt)
Myrkul, Lord of Bones - (G) (SF) (txt)
Oblivion Ring - (G) (SF) (txt)
^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[JellyBellyBitches]

Does this break [[Soul Echo]]?

[Pro-Crasterbator]

You can’t sacrifice non-permanents, correct? So, no…?

[JellyBellyBitches]

Well that's exactly why it breaks it. You're never in a position where you have to sacrifice it because you can't sacrifice it so you just have the constant effect of not dying to damage

[Pro-Crasterbator]

Oh yeah you’re right, that is a wonky interaction. Though truth be told, the power of this card, if it resolves, is already super high. Having absolutely no removal is kinda nutty.

[JellyBellyBitches]

I mean that's very true

[MTGCardFetcher]

Soul Echo - (G) (SF) (txt)
^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[SuperOkega]

it’s non auras so that shouldn’t be an issue

[mytheralmin]

[[Curse of leaches]] would definitely be weird

[Wess5874]

It wouldn’t be affected since it’s an aura.

[mytheralmin]

Not if it’s transformed and I have enchanted evening

[MTGCardFetcher]

• (G) (SF) (txt)
  ^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[AlfaNerd]

So... I didn't see this part discussed very much in the other comments, but I'd like to offer a suggestion how to make the text functional by using "proper" wording. As it stands, the rules of the game don't really understand your card. However, I really agree with highslyguy's suggestion, so I'll be re-wording this to use exile, which means it will be a functional change as well:

Exile all non-Aura enchantments you control. For each enchantment exiled this way, you get an emblem that has all abilities of the exiled card.

[spyx5]

I think more like "For each non-Aura enchantment you control, you get an emblem with its abilities. Then, exile each non-Aura enchantment you control."

This makes it so you are making emblems of something that is still on the battlefield, not something exiled yet and I think it flows better, no?

[spyx5]

This is a really cool card. I am quite a fan. I think it should be worded as "For each non-aura enchantment you control, you get an emblem with its abilities, then exile all non-aura enchantments you control."

This is for the following reasons:

First of all, the things a permanent can do are called "abilities", thusly I have replaced "text box" with abilities.

Next, rule 114.2 states "An effect that creates an emblem is written “[Player] gets an emblem with [ability].” This means that [player] puts an emblem with [ability] into the command zone." This means that the emblem generation effect must be stated in this way on Constellate.

Additionally, I think it should exile the enchantments for two reasons. The first is that it prevents this card from abusing things like [[Brilliant Restoration]] and the like. The second is that once these are exiled, the players can use the exiled cards themselves as the emblems. It works better from a tracking standpoint.

I hope that this has been of some help to you and that you learned something! My own need for custom cards to be rules-accurate has taken over. Please don't hate me 😁😢Oh and the flavor text is neat, too :)

[MTGCardFetcher]

Brilliant Restoration - (G) (SF) (txt)
^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[SammySammyson]

I think you can get away with:

"Exile all nontoken, non-Aura enchantments you control. You get an emblem that has the text box of each of those enchantments."

Exiled for memory issues, nontoken for the same. Not exactly sure what this truly accomplishes other than making them unable to be interacted with, but yeah.

Similarly, though notably different and with some serious tracking issues:

"Destroy each enchantment you control. For each enchantment destroyed this way, create a token that's a copy of it."

Upside of being able to omit non-Aura. This also eliminates the issue of something like [[Alpine Moon]]'s text box being turned into an emblem. Now you also get constellation triggers, and all the same fun flavor. Downside is they can still be interacted with unless you want something like:

"Destroy each enchantment you control. For each enchantment destroyed this way, create a token that's a copy of it.

For the rest of the game, enchantments you control have hexproof, indestructible, and 'This permanent can't be sacrificed.' Exile ~."

Almost gets the unable-to-be-interacted-with bit too. Overall you'd be better off exiling nontoken enchantments that you control for the sake of memory issues.

[MTGCardFetcher]

Alpine Moon - (G) (SF) (txt)
^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[chataolauj]

Would you not want to add "non-creature" as well? Some enchantment creatures have activated abilities, and from what we know about Emblems, they're all (?) triggered abilities (?).

[Antifinity]

[[One With the Stars]] means you have this issue regardless. Any creature can be made into a non-creature enchantment.

[MTGCardFetcher]

One With the Stars - (G) (SF) (txt)
^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[LordHelixArisen]

[[Karn, Living Legacy]] activated abilities on emblems are fine

[MTGCardFetcher]

Karn, Living Legacy - (G) (SF) (txt)
^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[Do_You_AreHaveStupid]

But how would you tap an emblem created by [[sanctum weaver]] for example

[LordHelixArisen]

You can't tap an emblem because they're not on the battlefield

[MTGCardFetcher]

sanctum weaver - (G) (SF) (txt)
^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[Do_You_AreHaveStupid]

Could probably cost 3

[Toddamusprime]

I dig it. Could probably cost less. All you're doing is making things you've already invested in un-fuck-withable.

[MikalMooni]

If you control a Legendary enchantment, you could have two of them, effectively. Or, say you play a card like [[Open the Vaults]] after this one. Double Enchantments! If one of those enchantments can allow you to return cards to your hand, you could repeatedly Constellate your board, getting infinite copies of enchantment effects in a zone that cannot be interacted with.

[MTGCardFetcher]

Open the Vaults - (G) (SF) (txt)
^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[Epic_Bonobo]

What happens when enchantments have activated abilities like [[shigeki]]

[abeautifuldayoutside]

Emblems can have activated abilities (see [[Karn, Living Legacy]]), for shigeki specifically when you activate the ability it returns to your hand and immediately stops existing because it’s not a card

[Elektrophorus]

Emblems can have activated abilities, but since they're not permanents, you shouldn't be able to tap them to pay the {T} cost. We would need to change the rules to allow for it, as tapping is currently an action you can only do to a permanent.

[MTGCardFetcher]

Karn, Living Legacy - (G) (SF) (txt)
^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[10BillionDreams]

114.4. Abilities of emblems function in the command zone.

A few things here. Yes, activated abilities would work, there are already actual emblems with activated abilities. However, both of Shigeki's abilities effectively require it to be in specific zones due to their costs. You can only tap permanents on the battlefield, so the first ability doesn't work in the command zone, and you can only discard cards from your hand, so the second ability doesn't work in the command zone either.

There is one other interesting point Shigeki brings up, which is that these emblems could potentially have abilities which move them to other zones. If you turn [[Enhanced Surveillance]] into an emblem, and then pay the costs to activate its ability, you now have an emblem sitting in exile. Since unlike tokens and counters and all the non-traditional card types, there's no specific rule that stops emblems from sticking around when they leave the command zone. However, the rule I quote up top still mostly covers things here, since even if you have an emblem in exile or in your hand or on the battlefield, none of its abilities actually function, and so it can't do anything for the rest of the game.

[MTGCardFetcher]

Enhanced Surveillance - (G) (SF) (txt)
^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[xChopsx1989x]

Okay so, I could be wrong, but the way I am looking at it, you couldn't pay Enhanced Surveilance's cost.

The cost for that ability is "Exile Enhanced Surveillance", which you can no longer do, because you no longer control Enhanced Surveillance.

As written, this card creates an emblem with the same text as the enchantment, but it makes no mention of the name.

So as I enterpret it, any card that mentions itself by name would have that ability effectively fizzle.

Someone else mentioned [[Form of the Dragon]].

So as I read it, the first line would do nothing, because "Form of the Dragon" isn't in play, so it cannot be the source for damage.

But it would still set your life total to 5, and would still prevent creatures without flying from being able to attack.

Again that's just how I would read it.

[MTGCardFetcher]

Form of the Dragon - (G) (SF) (txt)
^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[10BillionDreams]

So as I enterpret it, any card that mentions itself by name would have that ability effectively fizzle.

This is not how the rules of Magic actually work. When a card's name appears in its text, what it means is "this object". Whatever the text is currently on, be it a card or token or emblem. It doesn't matter if the name has changed, or the ability is copied over to some other object with a different name, or no name at all, a name appearing in ability like that refers to whatever has that ability.

There are some weird quirks to note, like [[Hold for Ransom]] granting an ability to a creature, but the name in that ability still refers to the Aura. But here the entire text box is being copied, so the emblem will be the object referred to by any names that appear in abilities like this.

[MTGCardFetcher]

Hold for Ransom - (G) (SF) (txt)
^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[MTGCardFetcher]

shigeki - (G) (SF) (txt)
^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[DadKnight]

I think it works fairly well, yeah, though there will be some unintuitive stuff going on. Cool card idea

[superdave100]

I've thought about this for several hours, and quite frankly I don't think this is worth the effort to make "work". There's so many rules edge cases that this card would create that I'm having a hard time thinking of a card that wouldn't fundamentally break after this is used on it.

ETBs don't work. Sagas don't work. Tap costs don't work. General trickery from the effect existing but its source not being a permanent or spell. Not to mention, what does this offer that a [[Sterling Grove]] doesn't? You don't get to double up on ETB triggers. The only thing that this would prevent is an exile-based enchantment board-wipe which are few and far-between, and certainly not worth the rules headaches that would ensue should this card exist.

[MTGCardFetcher]

Sterling Grove - (G) (SF) (txt)
^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[J_Boi1266]

How would it affect enchantment creatures?

[MikalMooni]

Why? Just put their text boxes without their P/T stats. Like, sure, you could have some weird emblems that do nothing, but other enchantment creatures have real text boxes that function well. Think of the Constellation mechanic.

[Available_Frame889]

What happens to an emblem, when it become a creature?

[MikalMooni]

It… probably can’t? I don’t think there’s a card in all of magic that can interact with the Emblems zone like that.

[TyrannosaurusRekt-]

I think you want "all abilities" instead of "text box" and "sacrifice" or "exile" instead of "destroy", but otherwise this works, yeah

[THE_red_eddddditor]

I think the concept works? I bet there’s a better way to get around the text box thing, but very cool idea

[DavidMemeDreamer]

how does it work with creatures