Card spoilers so far.

[ringkichard]

The answer is an obvious no....not being a smart-aleck just going through what happens game mechanic wise....

You sure?

In the upcoming FAQ, we will state that any object that is attached to another object (like an enchantment attached to a creature) is destroyed if the target it is attached to becomes illegal. Thus if you Mind Control a creature with a Standard Bearer attached, the Standard Bearer will be destroyed.

[Laddinfance]

Sorry that this is taking longer than I'd hoped. Among the several things on my plate at the moment, there is also updating the Supplement. Hopefully when that is out it will clear a lot of this up.

[sIKE]

In the upcoming FAQ, we will state that any object that is attached to another object (like an enchantment attached to a creature) is destroyed if the target it is attached to becomes illegal. Thus if you Mind Control a creature with a Standard Bearer attached, the Standard Bearer will be destroyed.

That doesn't make a lick of sense! I understand objects limited to school or mage but if it was legal when cast such as Standard Bearer and the creature is still a Soldier why would you add a Dispel function to this already powerful spell?

[Laddinfance]

In the upcoming FAQ, we will state that any object that is attached to another object (like an enchantment attached to a creature) is destroyed if the target it is attached to becomes illegal. Thus if you Mind Control a creature with a Standard Bearer attached, the Standard Bearer will be destroyed.

That doesn't make a lick of sense! I understand objects limited to school or mage but if it was legal when cast such as Standard Bearer and the creature is still a Soldier why would you add a Dispel function to this already powerful spell?

In the case of Standard Bearer I could see the point that you're "controlling" the enchantment, and as a non-warlord you shouldn't be able to. Granted this is a point I want to look into more and understand exactly why we were looking to make this ruling.

[sIKE]

True this is a case where it is Warlord only so I could see it going away as result, but not Akiro's Favor.

[jacksmack]

Both Standard Bearer and Akiros Favor must target a friendly creature.
Not that i like this, but it makes sense.

[sIKE]

Both Standard Bearer and Akiros Favor must target a friendly creature.
Not that i like this, but it makes sense.

But Standard Bearer is Warlord Only where as Akiro's Favor is not.

[ACG]

In the upcoming FAQ, we will state that any object that is attached to another object (like an enchantment attached to a creature) is destroyed if the target it is attached to becomes illegal. Thus if you Mind Control a creature with a Standard Bearer attached, the Standard Bearer will be destroyed.

That doesn't make a lick of sense! I understand objects limited to school or mage but if it was legal when cast such as Standard Bearer and the creature is still a Soldier why would you add a Dispel function to this already powerful spell?

It makes a lick of sense. Suppose there is some enchantment that gives a creature poison immunity (call it "immunity"). Suppose that creature has ghoul rot or poisoned blood revealed on it. When immunity is revealed on that creature, it ought to eliminate the poison enchantments attached to that creature.

Or suppose there is an enchantment ("undeath") which gives a living creature the nonliving trait. Suppose that creature has Bear Strength, or some other living-only enchantment. When undeath is revealed, the creature should lose such enchantments.

[sIKE]

What we are talking about here is a backdoor Dispel. Once it an Enchantment is bound to a legal object I see no reason why it would become unbound when circumstances change. Unwinding magic in this manner would be a very powerful way to get rid of attached Enchantments both good and bad, to (I think) the determent of the game.

In the Undead scenario you floated, I could see a Disable marker being placed on the Enchantment (Bear Strength) during each Upkeep phase, as long as the Undead Enchantment is attached to the creature, but not a Dispel.

[lettucemode]

I am with sIKE on this one, kind of. The difference between the Poison Immunity example given and this is that Poison Immunity is a trait and Poison is a damage type, but "Friendly", on the other hand, is not a trait nor an in-built characteristic of a card - it has to do with the context of the game, who controls what. Enchantments falling off as a result of traits I can agree with, but I'm not so sure about the Friendly thing.

[echephron]

This thread seems to have become the discussion place for "enchant target friendly creature", which would be better served in its own thread, but oh well.

I'd rule it that enchantments get a disable marker during the upkeep phase if they are not on a valid target(disable placed during upkeep sticks around the whole round right?).  Then you can move the enchantment with a spell, or regain control of the creature.

[ringkichard]

Can we talk more about this in the playtester forums instead? I think this is a corner case, but if there's a genuinely broken way to use this, I'd like to know about it.