on (((Tie in Ribbons))) Link mentioned that this effect would make sense as this set's board sweeper. Makes sense to me, though, I have no idea what the proper cost of this is, since, in Mono-White this is a lot like a Plague Wind.

I chose the name to make fun of Link's typo on Tie in Ribbons. :) I'll change it when the card and mechanics settle more.

"Dag"?

Alternatively? This could also say "Destroy all blue, black, red and green creatures". In set, that would almost mean the same thing.

Keep up, dude. Dag was so, like, 2 minutes ago.

I typed my comment, then got distracted before I posted it, okay?

I like the idea, but I agree that "reset the board" is a different slot to "wipe out your half of the board". The first is vital for catching up from behind (the wrath of God variant at anywhere up to six mana I think is always really useful, because it's the answer to 80% of dire situations) but the second also catapults you into the lead in a semi-even situation.

­Mass Calcify or Martial Coup suggest these normally cost abotu 7 mana -- which is more than you'd normally pay, but is probably worth it if you expect the game to get to seven mana.

I like a "cares about enchantments" wrath, it seems very apposite, but can anyone think of a variant that's less backbreaking?

­Winds of Rath puts beneficial wrathing at , but then there are those that say that that card is broken :) (those people are usually the ones I'm playing with my hexproof-auras deck, but hey)

LOL, yeah, I wanted Winds of Rath in an Uril the Miststalker EDH deck :)

But my point is, you have to jump through a lot of hoops to make sure all your creatures are enchanted: you have to play a deck that specifically does that, and even then you may draw too many creatures and not enough auras. But Dag naturally goes in a mono-white deck, and in this set mono-white decks BY DEFAULT will ALL be immune to this. To me, that suggests it should cost more than Winds (probably 2 more?)

At the very least it should cost 7, so I jumped it to seven. It's funny, though. Any other block and it would cost 6. In normal Magic it will often be 'weaker' than Akroma's Vengeance. Hmm... There's an interesting debate boiling behind that problem.

How about "Return all enchantments to their owner's hand, then destroy all non-land permanents." That's not a complete route, since you probably don't have the ability to replay your board full of dudes, but it certainly sets you up for the win. I'd say, with that, we could jump back to 6cc.

PS. On reflection, it's probably good that this exists (whatever it costs), even if it doesn't fill the wrath slot. What other set will ever print this? But it's interesting here. And it's not vital to have a wrath -- it's always rare, so it's not a big factor in limited, and in constructed the core set usually has Wrath.

­How about "Return all enchantments to their owner's hand, then destroy all non-land permanents."

That's an interesting idea, I was thinking something quite similar. This is a bit crazy, but how about "destroy all creatures, exile all artifacts, return all enchantments to their owner's hands?" I don't care about artifacts much, but it seems more symmetrical than "destroy creatures and artifacts, bounce enchantments".

(That'd change the decision about the sacrifice effect of the pacifism variant, but we don't need to worry about that yet, we should design the best card in abstract.)

When I make comments from my Kindle, it's hard to avoid typos, and frustrating to fix them. Sorry. :) What if this exiled your enchantments UEOT, then destroyed everything?

Doing different things with my enchantments to everyone else's feels a bit too evocative of old confusing cards like Remove Enchantments.

I assume Link is cool with the card exiling all enchantments instead. If by everything, Link also is including lands... I'd say that that's bound to be an expensive spell, although, it's roughly just Jokulhaups. I think I like Link's second idea better than his first one, but I don't know whether we want a game finishing 8cc spell, or something closer to my idea. I could see us going either way...