For White Commons Submissions

I don't think I like this. It only does anything with other white creatures; in a typical two-colour draft deck, if you draw this and all your blue creatures or red creatures, it won't do anything. Of course, it will do very little anyway; I assume it's a deliberately bad card.

It might be fractionally more interesting if it had flash? Or would that be too much extra complication?

I admit, I'm a little confused by my own design with this one. I wish I knew what I was thinking at the time...

I wonder if your opinion of the card would change if the card was above the curve. I took the liberty of changing +0/+2 to +3/+3. Does that make the card sound interesting, or does it just make it more obvious that it isn't worth it?

+3/+3, and make the creature immune to direct removal? Sounds pretty good to me.

Downside is its enchantment not equipment; which would probably be / or so. Looks vaguely reasonable to me. I wouldn't jump up "Must draft every single one" but I suspect someone who did would do pretty well...

Hang on; enchant enchantment? Shouldn't that be creature?

Iiinteresting. So it functions like a Sterling Grove to protect one key enchantment, or effectively a tribal pump spell, like Lavamancer's Skill or Cloak and Dagger or Kitsune Healer. But all of those do something on a creature that's not of their preferred tribe. So I think I'm still not keen, but I'm interested what other people think.

The point is that it only grants the bonus to enchantment creatures. The templating for that is a bit off, so I'm going to take the liberty of making that more clear.

I like the idea here, but how about just "Enchanted creature has +2/+2 and hexproof"? I think that would make an aura that was very playable, which is sufficiently revolutionary in itself, and if so, it makes sense to seize all the simple commons that are appropriate for our set, since we will want complex ones in many slots.

I like the idea that white could have some strong uncommon and rare enchantments which would be worth hexproofing, but maybe have a "Enchanted enchantment has hexproof. Enchantment creatures you control get +1/+1." card at uncommon?

I'd rather have only "enchant creature"s at common, and an "enchant enchantment" or two at unc/rare.

Heh. Jack, you just argued for "works better in set" with Cleansing Powder, and "works better outside of set" with Soft Filter. :D

I'm cool with this card changing over. I like the ability as it stands, but, I'm the designer. Of course I'm going to like my design. Changing over.

This is now good. Plays well, seems about right cost-wise.

I like this card, but I think we made a mistake. (Sorry :)) Shroud/Hexproof, despite their defensiveness, are not white common. They are, if I remember green first, blue second (although blue got quite a bit of hexproof and a lot of shroud at one time, and it feels more natural so people associate shroud with blue).

IIRC White gets similar effects: "protection from X" and "counter target spell that targets you/a permanent you control".

Should this become "W: Counter target spell that targets enchanted creature"? That's basically the same (slightly worse because of the mana), but fits the pie better. Or maybe we should stick with the spirit of the pie[1] and give this protection from something instead, or something else entirely?

[1] I enjoy saying "the spirit of the pie" :)

You know, you're right. I don't know why I didn't spot that. White does get a little untargetability, but you're right, it shouldn't be at common.

White countermagic is also very dubious, especially at common.

We could have this be a Cho-Manno's Blessing. That would work interestingly in a mono-vs-multi set. Or for a similar take on the same idea, Mask of Law and Grace.

Having tested the tri-color decks, let me tell you, this was insanely good on a CD flying bear. The only real way to handle a 3/5 Flying, Vigilance, Hexproof creature is to find a creature big enough to block the thing... and that's not a reliable strategy.

So, I'm cool with this card not having blanket untargetability from opponents. Would totem armor be a good choice? You know, without the word 'totem armor'? Or maybe just return it to your hand instead of the graveyard?

Yeah, seems like a good idea. I chose "sac: return to hand" instead because that should have the same effect, but not come out and say totem armour. Although it may be too good you can do this optionally, it could go back to an auto-trigger if that reduces board complexity.

Seems strong right now, but I know we're working on pushing white. We'll see how this tests.

Prefer this to be simpler.

Are you saying "I wanted this to be simpler, so I changed it from activated to triggered", or "Even after changing this from activated to triggered, I'd still like to simplify this further"?

Oops, sorry. I meant "I wanted this to be simpler, so I changed it from activated to triggered"