Get the MTG
Interactive Encyclopedia
from Amazon.com

     Boy, isn't it fun casting holy strength on your creature? He becomes so much bigger! A bigger target… bigger loss of card advantage… 
     Nowadays it is a very elite group of creature enchantments that see constructed play; usually those that either have a self protection mechanism like rancor, an equivalent protection for the creature they enchant, something that basically replaces itself, or something that gives more power than the mana spent on it, with the occasional exception of metagame choices like maniacal rage. Not that I hold any special place in my heart for creature enchantments, but I would like to see a larger sized set without thirty or so dead cards for constructed play in it, ones that are dead solely because they are creature enchantments. When we were finally on the right track with something that was staple-worthy like rancor, we regressed and were forced into busting packs with 'quality' spells like Stamina…
     Is it asking too much to have a creature enchantment with some backup mechanism for when your opponent has ANY form of instant creature removal that fizzles your enchantment before you even get to draw the card? Is it too much to ask for the creature enchantments that could have enough effect on the game to be reasonably costed? Is there anyone that wants to pay 3 mana for a +1/+1 and cantrip? And that is assuming that the creature doesn't disappear before his weapons get to him. In war, we don't give every soldier a super-duper tactical helmet with distance readouts, laser sighting, built in walkie talkies, gas masks and rear view mirrors because one shot can still make that a waste of equipment. Either stop printing them or make them tourney worthy. I'm not saying there shouldn't be flak in a set, just that 90% of it shouldn't be creature enchantments… especially if we are trying to encourage creature combat in tournaments.
Perhaps we could have a sorcery that has target player draw a card and if successfully cast BECOMES a +1/+1 creature enchantment on target creature… then maybe it would be worth the extra 2 mana you paid for it… maybe. And what WAS wrong with rancor? It was playable in a lot of decks? Reprint rancor. Even a card such as curiousity was rarely played, despite its potential, simply because it had a potential to give your opponent an extra card instead. Don't take Giant strength as the example, it was a metagame choice, not a naturally strong (or even decent) card. Take unholy strength as the example… if you are going to chance losing a card at no extra cost to them it should be for something worth playing. Why has Crusade seen more play than hermetic study? Not because it is horrifically overpowering, but because it doesn't lose you 2 full virtual game turns when someone unsummons your only creature. 

     I'm not asking much, just a little provisional support for my army… y'know… bayonets instead of a menacing looking pine cone or whatever it is you think wanderlust equates to … thanks General WotC. <salutes>