Red & Enchantments

53 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mark Rosewater has commented on his tumblr that he would consider ways for red to deal with enchantments, but only if they were red in flavor. R&D hasn't given red many tools in this regard, so I thought I'd pitch some ideas relative to what has been released.

There appear to be four different ways (under the NWO) that red deals with enchantments:

1) Blowing up the world, and thus the enchantment along with everything else: Worldfire / Scrambleverse / Warp World
2) Simply destroying it but only if that outcome is random: Capricious Efreet / Tyrant of Discord
3) Stealing the enchantment temporarily: Confusion in the Ranks / Word of Seizing / Zealous Conscripts
4) Getting rid of it but then producing a random result afterwards: Chaos Warp

...with a small caveat tied to #4, namely that Chaos Warp was poorly designed (in M.R.'s eyes), since it almost always results in flipping a land and effectively just "destroying" the enchantment with no real red flavor. The spirit of the card appears to be monored nonetheless. Also noting that while Word of Seizing is from time spiral, it was practically reprinted with Zealous Conscripts.

A common answer rules out option #1, but the other three leave plenty of design space:

Ignoring mana costs, based on #2:

Sorcery
Flip a coin. If you win the flip, destroy target enchantment. If you lose the flip, you lose (some number of) life.
(Perhaps tack on something like "and you may repeat this process")

-

Based on #3:

Sorcery
Gain control of target noncreature permanent until end of turn.

-

Based on #4:

Instant
The owner of target permanent shuffles it into his or her library and then reveals cards from the top of his or her library until a permanent card with the same card type is revealed. That player may put that card onto the battlefield.

-

Random other idea:

Creature
If ~ is unblocked, you may assign its combat damage to a noncreature, nonland permanent defending player controls. If that permanent has damage marked on it in this way equal to or greater than that permanent's converted mana cost, destroy that permanent.

-

What do you think? What would be reasonable?
#4 is the idea I thought was best when I was reading that discussion, at least from a potential design space standpoint. Red should have access to Polymorph-type effects anyway (far more than blue should). Stealing is also a good choice.

Your card for #2 is essentially Gate to Phyrexia/Phyrexian Tribute for red--it's not a good option.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

Your card for #2 is essentially Gate to Phyrexia/Phyrexian Tribute for red--it's not a good option.


I think it could work if it targeted 'any non-land permanent' or 'any artifact, creature or enchantment' and it was costed appropriately.
Red should have access to Polymorph-type effects anyway (far more than blue should).



I agree about #4, but Polymorphing strikes me as a :G: and :U: thing.

After playing Dark Souls, I've kind of liked the idea of Red having more "constructive chaos" in addition to "burn" and "dragons" for flavor. I think this should come mainly in the form of punishment resolved by chance.IE...

"Kingdom Come
Sorcery
Destroy target Enchantment, Creature or Land. Then, flip a coin: If heads, you sacrifice a land"

That spell would be deliberately too powerful every time you flip tails, and too underwhelming every time you flip heads. Making it both powerful and playable, but making it something that isn't an auto-4 mainboard in almost any deck.

Similarly, adding a random Arc Trail effect to Searing Spear  would make it less embarassing to play when pitted against it's predecessor Incinerate. The idea being that random punishment can reward cards made a little too strong, and random reward can make slightly underwhelming cards worthwhile.

Consider also, however that random teetering should be conservatively done, since nobody likes "Heads, win the game", but a spell like Ignite Memories is exciting and white knuckle to resolve.
IMAGE(http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af108/acatan/sigwynzermancopy.png) Signature by IMAGE(http://www.poke-amph.com/heartgoldsoulsilver/sprites/258.png)
I agree about #4, but Polymorphing strikes me as a :G: and :U: thing.

Changing something into something specific, like Turn to Frog or Snakeform, is definitely blue/green. But a random polymorph effect? Turning something into something else without caring what that "something else" may be? Red all the way through.

I think this should come mainly in the form of punishment resolved by chance.[...]

That's not a punishment--that's a card with a drawback that sometimes disappears. It's just Phyrexian Tribute in different clothing. Drawbacks on straight-up normal removal spells are not the way to go here. If you want to give a color a way to do things, you need to do it in a way that isn't just a bad version of the way other colors deal with things. Giving what the other colors have drawbacks isn't the way to go about it, and that's what #2's example card and Kingdom Come are.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

I think this should come mainly in the form of punishment resolved by chance.[...]

That's not a punishment--that's a card with a drawback that sometimes disappears. It's just Phyrexian Tribute in different clothing. Drawbacks on straight-up normal removal spells are not the way to go here. If you want to give a color a way to do things, you need to do it in a way that isn't just a bad version of the way other colors deal with things. Giving what the other colors have drawbacks isn't the way to go about it, and that's what #2's example card and Kingdom Come are.


But this isn't an example of that.  It would be if it only targeted enchantments, but the fact that it can target three types of permanents means it can afford to be a decent card without totally removing red's weakness.  Since more flexible cards have their cost increased to reflect that, a card that targets a bunch of other stuff in additional to enchantments can be more costly/have bigger drawbacks than a card that only removes enchantments yet still be decent cards.  Hence this allows you to give red a playable card that destroys enchantments, yet not make it as good at specifically destroying enchantments as say white.
I really don't see a reason for red to destroy artifacts, creatures, lands, planeswalkers and enchantments too.
But this isn't an example of that. It would be if it only targeted enchantments, but the fact that it can target three types of permanents means[...]

Being able to target other kinds of things in addition to enchantments doesn't make it any less of a straight-up enchantment-removal spell. You're right that from a straight-up costing perspective, ignoring color, a card that can target more types of permanents can be more costly or have bigger drawbacks and still be worthwhile, because the increased flexibility is worth the cost/drawbacks. But finding a way for red to deal with enchantments isn't a costing issue; it's a matter of color philosophy.

Hence this allows you to give red a playable card that destroys enchantments, yet not make it as good at specifically destroying enchantments as say white.

Red is supposed to have a hard time dealing with enchantments. Not in the sense of "it should be able to do it, but it should be worse at it than the other colors", but in the sense that it's straight-up incapable of dealing with them in the same way that the other colors are, because its normal problem-solving approach (Smash it! Burn it! Fry it!) just plain doesn't work on something nonphysical. Giving red an answer to enchantments shouldn't be about making enchantment-removal spells that have red-feeling riders, costs, or drawbacks. That's what Phyrexian Tribute did--it took a mechanic that wasn't black and gave it a black-feeling drawback. That made for a lousy black card, and it'll make for lousy red cards too. Giving red an answer to enchantments should be about finding red things to do that happen to be able to answer enchantments.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

But this isn't an example of that. It would be if it only targeted enchantments, but the fact that it can target three types of permanents means[...]

Being able to target other kinds of things in addition to enchantments doesn't make it any less of a straight-up enchantment-removal spell. You're right that from a straight-up costing perspective, ignoring color, a card that can target more types of permanents can be more costly or have bigger drawbacks and still be worthwhile, because the increased flexibility is worth the cost/drawbacks. But finding a way for red to deal with enchantments isn't a costing issue; it's a matter of color philosophy.

Except that this is already what they are doing. Chaos Warp is a card that was designed under modern design rules that allows red to remove any enchantment but with an added drawback (your opponent gets to put a random card from his library into play). The reason it works is because it can target any permanent. Of the nine cards that the OP listed as allowing red to deal with enchantments, all of them can affect any permanent or any nonland permanent. This is also reflected in other colours e.g. Beast Within allows green to destroy any creature with a drawback.
Mark Rosewater, however, has stated that he doesn't like the approach to the colour pie that Chaos Warp and Beast Within take. Note that Beast Within was New Phyrexia, the worst set for colour bleed and not setting precedents since Planar Chaos.
Mark Rosewater, however, has stated that he doesn't like the approach to the colour pie that Chaos Warp and Beast Within take. Note that Beast Within was New Phyrexia, the worst set for colour bleed and not setting precedents since Planar Chaos.



However, MaRo's opinion isn''t the final verdict- cards like Chaos Warp, Beast Within, and even ye olde Polymorph exist because they're effective, but also fun means of dealing with stuff, or pushing into something crazy.

@Zammm-
What differentiates the roundabout flavor of spells that randomly punish or reward you from  the flavor of something like Prey Upon (which gets praise for being :G: creature removal.) My thought is that making "absolute worse" isn't very flavorful to :R: as far as non-R removal in :R: goes, so cards that are almost overpowered, with possible downside, or making mediocre cards like Searing Spear occasionally sweet is an effective way of making "chaos" flavor playable without having to be something dumb like Warp World.
IMAGE(http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af108/acatan/sigwynzermancopy.png) Signature by IMAGE(http://www.poke-amph.com/heartgoldsoulsilver/sprites/258.png)
However, MaRo's opinion isn''t the final verdict- cards like Chaos Warp, Beast Within, and even ye olde Polymorph exist because they're effective, but also fun means of dealing with stuff, or pushing into something crazy.

If it's not a final verdict, it's the closest thing there is to one--MaRo is R&D's resident color pie guru, the guy they turn to when they want to know if a color can do something. If he says Chaos Warp goes too far, I'm inclined to agree.

@Zammm-
What differentiates the roundabout flavor of spells that randomly punish or reward you from  the flavor of something like Prey Upon (which gets praise for being :G: creature removal.)

Green's primary (and usually sole) method of dealing with creatures has always been combat--green removes opposing creatures by getting them into combat, where it can then beat them up. It's been that way since Alpha, with Lure. (And its partner in crime Thicket Basilisk.) And this thing that green has always been able to do--force creatures into a losing fight and beat them up--is what fighting does, pulling two creatures into combat with each other. Prey Upon removes creatures by using something green has always been able to do in a new way.

Kingdom Come isn't doing that. The only part of its effect that is red is the land-destruction and sacrifice part. Kingdom Come is removing enchantments by using something red has never been able to do with some red things tacked on to the end.

That's the difference.

My thought is that making "absolute worse" isn't very flavorful to :R: as far as non-R removal in :R: goes, so cards that are almost overpowered, with possible downside, or making mediocre cards like Searing Spear occasionally sweet is an effective way of making "chaos" flavor playable without having to be something dumb like Warp World.

Unpredictability and chaos may be red, but it's like "demonic rituals" in black or "tricky" in blue--it can be used to justify anything at all, so using it as a justification for putting something in red is a bad idea.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

Red is supposed to have a hard time dealing with enchantments. Not in the sense of "it should be able to do it, but it should be worse at it than the other colors", but in the sense that it's straight-up incapable of dealing with them in the same way that the other colors are, because its normal problem-solving approach (Smash it! Burn it! Fry it!) just plain doesn't work on something nonphysical. Giving red an answer to enchantments shouldn't be about making enchantment-removal spells that have red-feeling riders, costs, or drawbacks. That's what Phyrexian Tribute did--it took a mechanic that wasn't black and gave it a black-feeling drawback. That made for a lousy black card, and it'll make for lousy red cards too. Giving red an answer to enchantments should be about finding red things to do that happen to be able to answer enchantments.



Indeed. I just threw #2 out there even disliking it myself for a clear comparison.

I almost prefer steals over polymorphs, but it would be nice to see polymorphs in red. The only problem I see there is that if the enchantment in question is the only enchantment the opponent uses...then it's still impossible for red to deal with it (in that respect), which doesn't exactly solve the problem. Perhaps something like this, that brings the opponent into the matter, would be alright:

The owner of target permanent shuffles it into his or her library and then chooses a permanent card type other than any card types that permanent had. Then that player reveals cards off of the top of his or her library until he or she reveals a card of the chosen card type, and puts that card onto the battlefield.

I really would like to see a common or uncommon steal that can affect enchantments in red. If it's narrow, it could be elegant, simply costed, and even instant.

Perhaps self-sacrifice could work for red? I never really understood why Greater Gargadon couldn't be used to sacrifice your own enchantments (they're your own for crying out loud!). If you manage to steal an opponent's enchantment with one card, and then use another card to sacrifice that enchantment, then isn't that an acceptable red means of dealing with enchantments? You clearly had to do some work there, and you had a small window of opportunity - the current turn - to perform this, as opposed to mind-control effects. Granted, the ol' gargadon is from Time Spiral, so that might just be a red herring.

Two-card combos within a colour can allow that colour to do things it doesn't normally do as a single effect. The most glaring example is Peculiar Distortion, but there are several more we've identified: Peculiar Putrefication, Peculiar Righteousness, Peculiar Soulwrangling, and so on. Mono-red can cast a Boros Recruit and put Scourge of the Nobilis on it, and suddenly they've got a lifelink creature. But that doesn't mean we should go using that as precedent for mono-red lifelinkers.

My point being, yes, red can gain control of enchantments with Zealous Conscripts or Word of Seizing, and red can sacrifice its own permanents with Telim'Tor's Edict or Crack the Earth, but that doesn't mean we should be using this as precedent for red getting to destroy enchantments with a single card.

However, I'm in favour of printing more effects like Zealous Conscripts and Word of Seizing, and more effects like Crack the Earth and Telim'Tor's Edict and a more permissive Greater Gargadon, to allow red to get clever sideways answers to enchantments.

(It's probably worth remembering that artifacts have their own slice of the pie, which isn't allowed to include "destroy target enchantment", but does include "destroy target permanent": Spine of Ish Sah, Lux Cannon, there are quite a few more. Mono-red decks can always include those to get more versatile (but expensive) removal, in the same way that white decks can include Disrupting Scepter and Gnarled Effigy to get discard and -1/-1 counter effects while those aren't available in mono-white.)

MaRo says he doesn't like them. At least that's somewhere on his Tumblr. He also doesn't like Mercy Killing for the same reason. It's a white card. Nothing about it is green.
139359831 wrote:
Clever deduction Watson! Maybe you can explain why Supergirl is trying to kill me.
---- Autocard is your friend. Lightning Bolt = Lightning Bolt
MaRo says he doesn't like them. At least that's somewhere on his Tumblr. He also doesn't like Mercy Killing for the same reason. It's a white card. Nothing about it is green.

Funny, I thought around Shadowmoor time I remember him saying how he did like it because it managed to work as a hybrid card despite not quite working either in monowhite or in monogreen. ...Yes, here it is; although I see that he technically doesn't actually say anywhere that he approves of it, he uses fairly positive words about it.
Link

So, he does have an issue with it. And presumably also Beast Within.
139359831 wrote:
Clever deduction Watson! Maybe you can explain why Supergirl is trying to kill me.
---- Autocard is your friend. Lightning Bolt = Lightning Bolt
I really don't see a reason for red to destroy artifacts, creatures, lands, planeswalkers and enchantments too.


I'd say Red needs a way to deal with enchantments because it restricts design space for enchantments if it doesn't. Every color has a way to deal with creatures and artifacts. Red has no way whatsoever to get rid of enchantments, which makes it harder for R&D to print really good enchantments while still keeping Red viable.

It also makes no sense that every other color has a way of dealing with any kind of permanent type, but Red has an arbitrary barrier for enchantments. Blue is supposed to be bad at dealing with creatures on the board, yet it can still bounce them. Black can discard artifacts. Every color has creatures that can attack into Planeswalkers. Yet the only ways of dealing with enchantments in Red are all limited to rare or above. (I'm not including lands because the majority of lands are not pushed enough to require answers in the same way as other permanents or are manlands.)

On a sidenote, I still think it's ridiculous that MaRo's disliked how Liquimetal Coating allows Red to destroy enchantments by turning them into artifacts, even though there was another card in the set that gave Blue direct damage without a 2 card combo at the same mana cost. Double standards are annoying.

Out of the options for common or uncommon ways of Red dealing with enchantments, I think #3, stealing permanents, is the best option to take, and it lends itself decently to common with Threaten analogues. It's also temporary, which really fits how Red works. #2 might seem attractive at first, but it's really just bad design in disguise; a random card with a non-Red effect doesn't play like a Red card, it plays like a gimped card of another color. #4 is too complex for common.
It also makes no sense that every other color has a way of dealing with any kind of permanent type, but Red has an arbitrary barrier for enchantments.

Mark Rosewater hasn't said that he doesn't want Red to be able to deal with enchantments; just that any card that does has to be Red first and an answer to enchantments second. And given that it took them about nineteen years to figure out how to put creature removal into Green, it might take a while.

Level 1 Judge as of 09/26/2013

Zammm = Batman

"Ability words are flavor text for Melvins." -- Fallingman

I really don't see a reason for red to destroy artifacts, creatures, lands, planeswalkers and enchantments too.


I'd say Red needs a way to deal with enchantments because it restricts design space for enchantments if it doesn't. Every color has a way to deal with creatures and artifacts.


Red and green can. White can but it's worse. But what's blue and black's answer? Steal Artifact? Negate? Duress?
I like this idea by Exxile72 as Red's way to deal with enchantments a lot.

IMAGE(http://i1.minus.com/jbcBXM4z66fMtK.jpg)

192884403 wrote:
surely one can't say complex conditional passive language is bad grammar ?
I'd say Red needs a way to deal with enchantments because it restricts design space for enchantments if it doesn't. Every color has a way to deal with creatures and artifacts.


Red and green can. White can but it's worse. But what's blue and black's answer? Steal Artifact? Negate? Duress?


All of the above, along with bounce spells; I already mentioned discard. All of these answer artifacts in some way without outright destroying them. On the other hand, Red has no option for a common or uncommon answer to enchantments. Every other color does.
In my opinion, Chaos Warp should be a staple red card and in every core set, and Mark Rosewater is dead wrong. It's perfectly red in flavor, and still probably less powerful than the catch-alls every other color gets. 

Also, why do black and red get restrictions placed on them (No artifact or enchantment removal for black, no enchantment removal for red) while the other three colors, artifacts, and multicolor have no such restrictions? Every other color can answer any type of nonland permanent. Land destruction isn't a part of modern simplified Magic, so there's no real argument that red and black "have land destruction" and white and blue do not. 
White removal is meant to have restrictions: it can only remove creatures if it's either in self-defense (e.g. you attacked or blocked me) or reversible (Pacifism, Oblivion Ring). But they keep flagrantly defying those restrictions with Iona's Judgment, Trostani's Judgment, Path to Exile etc. 

Blue removal is sortof meant to have restrictions: it can only answer permanents if it's either temporary (bounce) or showing off blue's preparedness (it has the mana and counterspell at the moment the permanent's being cast). These restrictions are actually followed, it's just that they're not very restrictive, especially for tempo decks where a Vapor Snag is pretty much as good as an Unmake.

Green removal most definitely has restrictions. People are overjoyed about fight giving green some direct creature removal at last, but it still needs green to have a big enough creature on the board. In return for having the most conditional creature removal, green gets to be best at removing noncreatures (Bramblecrush etc), which seems fair enough.
I really don't see a reason for red to destroy artifacts, creatures, lands, planeswalkers and enchantments too.


I'd say Red needs a way to deal with enchantments because it restricts design space for enchantments if it doesn't. Every color has a way to deal with creatures and artifacts.


Red and green can. White can but it's worse. But what's blue and black's answer? Steal Artifact? Negate? Duress?



Sort of. Red and green can deal with artifacts. White can, but it's worse. Blue can steal, bounce (not permanent solution), or counter (time-critical). Black has discard, which is also time-critical, and a sorcery at that.

For creatures, black and red are best at dealing with them. White can force you to trade them for something, kill fatties, kill nonwhite ones but not as good as black can kill nonblack ones, kill em all, or stop them temporarily. Blue can steal, bounce, or counter again. Green? Green is supposed to have no way of dealing with creatures escept combat. Fight is a flavorful way to break the rule while keeping to its spirit. What else does green have? Occasional bleed? Common bleed that makes no sense but thankfully is unplayable?

Basically it goes back to green's belief that the strong deserve to survive, but the weak don't.

Enchantments are kinda special, and enchantment-themed blocks are dangerous because the colors that like them are also the colors that hate them.
139359831 wrote:
Clever deduction Watson! Maybe you can explain why Supergirl is trying to kill me.
---- Autocard is your friend. Lightning Bolt = Lightning Bolt
Rather than giving Red ways to deal with enchantments, why not punish their use?

Aura Burn
Enchantment
At the beginning of your upkeep, each other enchantment deals 3 damage to its controller.

or for something a bit more generally useful

Mana Lash
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant permanent
At the beginning of enchanted permanent's controller's upkeep, Mana Lash deals damage to that player equal to enchanted permanent's converted mana cost.
I'm going to go as far as to say red should have a narrow sliver of direct enchantment removal. Specifically, auras you don't control that are enchanting your permanents. Stuff like Pacify and Paralyzing Grasp tick Red off and are prominent in enemy colors, to boot!

I'm not sure how to word spells in a way that destroys "removal auras" that doesn't seem needlessly narrow...

Maybe combat tricks that remove auras from creatures you control as a bonus?
"Destroy each aura attached to a permanent with a different owner."?  This also gets rid of blue's pesky mind control auras.

Would "Destroy all permanents attached to target permanent." be overreaching?
Enchantments are kinda special, and enchantment-themed blocks are dangerous because the colors that like them are also the colors that hate them.


This was one of the things I was thinking about. A problem with the original Mirrodin block was how the artifact interaction was distributed. Despite artifacts being a major theme, Green was completely excluded and only had artifact hate.

Now imagine something twenty times worse. That's an enchantment block. Red has zero ways of interacting with enchantments right now positively or negatively, and Black can only discard them. If you look at the Urza block (An enchantment block), Red got pretty much zilch in the enchantment department, and Black only got good enchantments, not good things to do with them. That's two entire colors dropped out of the loop. 

Now conversely, compare this to Red's color identity with artifacts; instead of just letting Red face the same fate as Green in Mirrodin as "Blargh blargh Shatterstorm", they gave it an "artifact diet" strategy based on cards like Atog that was quite fun to play with and even powerful (In the case of Shrapnel Blast); said strategy got expanded even more in Scars of Mirrodin. 

Although I guess this is a different topic altogether, since it's more about just interacting with enchantments in the first place.

Black has it even worse, though. Green gets artifact hate, the other colors get artifact love, and black gets...Disciple of the Vault. Sure, the card is totally busted, but you can't just put 30 Disciples in and say "Black's done! On to red!"

139359831 wrote:
Clever deduction Watson! Maybe you can explain why Supergirl is trying to kill me.
---- Autocard is your friend. Lightning Bolt = Lightning Bolt
Just a thought: Most colors that care about a thing don't destroy that thing. Perhaps red should be the I like enchantment color besides green, or white or whichever it is now. I mean, enchantments are something that an impulse emotion driven faction would believe in yes? And it would be a neat mirror to blue who likes artifacts.
Just a thought: Most colors that care about a thing don't destroy that thing. Perhaps red should be the I like enchantment color besides green, or white or whichever it is now. I mean, enchantments are something that an impulse emotion driven faction would believe in yes? And it would be a neat mirror to blue who likes artifacts.


Now that I think about it, enchantments would be a cool way to show the creative side of red.

IMAGE(http://steamsignature.com/status/default/76561197995631463.png) No longer a commander as of 7/29/13.

Just a thought: Most colors that care about a thing don't destroy that thing. Perhaps red should be the I like enchantment color besides green, or white or whichever it is now. I mean, enchantments are something that an impulse emotion driven faction would believe in yes? And it would be a neat mirror to blue who likes artifacts.


Now that I think about it, enchantments would be a cool way to show the creative side of red.



Creative is a word I hadn't heard used to describe red. That gives me an interesting perspective...
Red's creative nature ties into its reliance on nonpermanent spells more than the other colors (save blue). Enchantments seem more of a spiritual, religious, or mystical idea than an artistic one. But I suppose conceptually that they are just instants and sorceries with longer durations. So I suppose it'd make some sense. It wouldn't solve the actual issue, though.

If red sees enchantments as ideas manifest, like a religion, it would naturally set about destroying those ideas by destroying its maker directly. But that's already what red does and doesn't help much with the concept of a red answer to enchantments. 

I think it would be useful to look at how the other colors view enchantments conceptually. It would help to find a niche that red could fill. Working with the idea of religion again (because it's one of the easiest ways to view it, for me), white would deny one religion in favor of another, blue would intellectualize its problems, black would use scare-tactics to drive it away, and green would view it as unnatural. Those are just the initial ideas I had, but they can work as a basis. I think red would be similar to blue in this fashion, but rather than explaining it away through thought, it does so emotionally. The problem there is that intellectualizing something away makes more sense visually than emotionalizing something away. Maybe instead of trying to outsmart the concept like blue would, red tries to change it. This can be done in the style of Chaos Warp, but there are other ways:

Harmful Imaginings
Enchantment
When Harmful Imaginings enters the battlefield, another target enchantment becomes a copy of it.
At the beginning of your upkeep, Harmful Imaginings deals 1 damage to target player.

Legendary Downfall
Sorcery
Destroy target permanent with the same name as another permanent on the battlefield.

Deface
Sorcery
Turn target nonland permanent face-down. It becomes a colorless 2/2 creature.

Maddeinng Realist
Creature - Human Philosopher
When Maddening Realist enters the battlefield, target permanent becomes an artifact.
When Maddening Realist dies, destroy target artifact.
2/2

Quite possibly not the real answer to the problem, but I think the general concept has some merit. 
I don't see enchantments having anything to do with religion really, more like manifest spells like you said, curses, blessings, etc.
That was more my effort to contextualize it into something with real examples, making it easier to talk about and define support for and against.
Also deface doesn't need to say it becomes a creature, it's automatic unless it's a dfc. Also it feels more green, like beast within. In fact I basically made this card in my set with morph :O
It wouldn't have to say it in a set with morph (though you would be reminded of it). I'm claiming the mechanic can be used outside that setting, but that might not necessarily be ture. Either way, the card would spell it out or remind you.
Still, it's killing a thing and giving them a creature. Doesn't feel red. Feels white or green.
Just a thought: Most colors that care about a thing don't destroy that thing. Perhaps red should be the I like enchantment color besides green, or white or whichever it is now. I mean, enchantments are something that an impulse emotion driven faction would believe in yes? And it would be a neat mirror to blue who likes artifacts.



Well, that depends:

I like creatures: , ,
I hate creatures: ,

I like lands: ,
I hate lands: ,

I like artifacts: , ,
I hate artifacts: , ,

I like enchantments: , ,
I hate enchantments: ,

I like instants and sorceries: ,
I hate instants and sorceries:

I really like planeswalkers:
I hate planeswalkers: ,

So it's really only one case. You can look at other examples in the card types: Most "exile graveyard" cards are at the very least EDH-black.
139359831 wrote:
Clever deduction Watson! Maybe you can explain why Supergirl is trying to kill me.
---- Autocard is your friend. Lightning Bolt = Lightning Bolt
While I don't agree with all of Rush's conclusions, I do like the idea of giving red a relationship with enchantments in some way. I hadn't realized just how little interaction it actually had with them in general until it was pointed out, but in all of Magic it looks like Aura Barbs is the only red card that specifically interacts with enchantments. That's...wow.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.