This used to be Enfeeblement, and this version's strictly better, but it's not like that's a problem; Enfeeblement was never exactly a powerhouse.

Yeah, it is very similar but I had a hard time fitting the black cards of this cycle.

It seems a pity to see this at uncommon when it's such a common-suitable effect. It's not even overpowered removal for bombs.

Alex: Maybe you forgot Dead Weight already exists, so this isn't groundbreaking. :P

I second the "why is this uncommon?" comment.

Well, I thought it was fine until you mentioned Dead Weight. How weird. I guess when Murder costs 3, and Doom Blade costs 2, there isn't much wiggle room for situational removal. I kind of liked it better when flat removal cost 4. I'm not really sure why we dropped the scale down... it only seems to remove Wizards design options.

I think removal is just right where it is. For a long time, black's unconditional removal cost a million mana, and that hurt a bit the color definition. Now, they embrace the "it's the best removal color" very well. But, of course, there's not a lot of room to play with removal inside the best removal color.

It's like thinking Hornet Sting numbers in red.

For the most part, I agree. I like the game better when creatures are more powerful, and removal is plentiful. I just didn't have a problem with as the baseline to destroy any creature. But, I guess, if is supposed to be "Destroy all the creatures", then it doesn't make sense for Murder to cost 4, eh?

Hmm. I don't know. With cheap removal, there's no real reason to play 6 cost creatures, unless those creatures have a form of protection from cheap removal. After a while we ended up with a full stable of good 5-7 cost cards with a solid defense from being removed... but maybe it would have been better to let the big creatures to be splashier, and less defensive, and make the baseline creature kill be a touch more expensive. But it isn't. So la-de-da.

I read a convincing argument that instead of giving splashy creatures hexproof and/or lots of card advantage, it would be better if removal were narrower and unconditional removal were more expensive. I think that might work better.

But it's impossible to design cards like that in isolation, the only sensible way is to stick to wizards current guidelines (or design a whole set with explicitly different assumptions).

FWIW, I suppose Wrath of God is the minimum, not the average, cost for mass removal. But OTOH, it's always possible that "destroy target creature" and "destroy all creatures" cost the same :)

Well, it does have the downside of removing all YOUR stuff; which isn't that helpful when there's only one threat you want to take care of.

And the emblematic Terror suggests "Having some limits" is the best way to go.

added a rider for when the enchanted creature dies.

Ooooh, that repeatability makes it a LOT stronger. Probably not unreasonable though.

it is limited to the creature dying - returning to hand, flickering, etc get around the return ability.

Sure; but it's still going to very often be ", Reveal this card from your hand: Kill target creature."

But, the times where it's ": Enchanted creature stomps you down to only -2 life rather than -4" probably make up for that.

pretty much what I wanted it to be, somewhere between Seal of Hatred and Symbol of Hatred

Wow, yeah. This is indeed spicy, but every colour has ways round it (even if red's are usually "burn/sac my creature in response so your spell fizzles").

changed the cost to return to match the casting cost so it's a little less spicy :-)

Mmmm... I'm more often going to be willing to forgo the bounce cost now. I like that. I suspect most people won't though.

Interestingly, this has ended up quite close to Krovikan Rot now. You have to pay the buyback cost at the moment the creature dies rather than when something else hits the yard, but it's nonetheless rather reminiscent.

Yeah... that was a bit too good. It compared too favorably to Punishing Fire.

To be honest, I'd probably say that the recursion cost is dangerously good at ... but it would need to be played to be proven one way or the other. I do know, however, that this is one of the best 'buyback' cards I've ever seen. Compare to... Shattering Pulse perhaps?

Hm. Maybe it should be reusable on a big guy but not as a repeated shock? But I'm not sure how to word that.

"If it's not your turn you may"? Though then it only helps if they attack (or you zap) - can't usefully help kill big walls. Or just "Enchant creature with toughness greater than 2"?

I'd suggest -5/-0, but I kind of doubt you wanted to end up with a blue card instead. :p

Quite happy with where it is now, will have to play with it a bit to see if it's too good.

This card is awesome.