Back at it pushing prowess into green. This time I think the card really wants it (an enchantress who can get big and swing after you draw from playing all your enchantments).

Yeah, this seems cool. In most scenarios you wouldn't think of green prowess, but here it fits really, really well.

Not a fan of green prowess, even in this instance. It does make more sense in this design, but temporary minor P/T boosts in Green feels out of place. I'd much rather this be a permanent buff at a higher mana cost, or limit it to enchantments only for a bigger buff - green never "dumps" all of their noncreature spells at a single time.

Are you telling us that if it had a higher mana cost and had two additional instances prowess you would be (more) down with it? That's somewhat of an amusing thought.

Well, if you look at buffs on other spells, white tends to get +1 and +2, whereas green gets +3 and above.

@Mal- When I have an enchantress out I drop as many enchantments as a I can a turn because draw.

@Dude- That's true in green, barring counters. On one hand a Yavimaya Enchantress is more narrow, but increases the card's power dramatically (a heavy hitter and draw enabler). A temporary p/t boost off of enchantments would just feel like an unnecessary choice over prowess imo (only because prowess was keyworded though).

@Tahazzar - Absolutely, though I'd still feel a bit weird about it. Might as well just write it out instead of making it trigger hell for online formats.

@Sorrow - That is true, but for most traditional enchantress decks, you're usually not casting more than one or two per turn, because global enchantments tend to have higher than average CMC compared to instants and sorceries. I can see this in a voltron-style deck that spams stuff like Ethereal Armor or Rancor, but those sorts of decks would much rather have something with a permanent buff rather than a temporary one - auras are "permanent" after all, compared to Kiln Fiend-style aggro decks that use (temporary) pump spells and cantrips alongside prowess and prowess-esque effects for "big turns/swings".

Making this slightly smaller in cost & stats and having it only draw cards from Auras seems like it would support the core concept slightly more. In either case, the card could be mono- or though personally I'm not a fan of drawing cards - not even in this fashion...

You mention this being "Back at it pushing prowess into green". What were the other attempts? I've a hard time seeing other mono- designs were prowess would make much sense.

@Tahazzar- Supernatural Krushok- I thought enchantments and ramp spells would make a creature want prowess. Seeing that green tends to either permanently get bigger or its temporary p/t boosts are much larger do make prowess feel off in green. Previously I had felt that red and blue being primary for prowess was getting people hung up on instants and sorceries when prowess triggers from any non-creature spell.

The noncreature part of prowess does make it more splashable indeed in various colors if you ask me.

Regarding the 'whiteness' of small buffs, there isn't much justification behind that decision other than making green and white distinct. I guess it could be a play on white having a focus on weenies, but I don't think that has ever been officially stated.

While it makes sense on most cases, it becomes fuzzy with scalable effects. For example, if I cast Untamed Might with X as 2 or less, should it actually be white? This isn't the only instance of a similar scenario. Supposedly, if you cast Blaze for ~8+ you are doing a color bend. Also, I think a card with "destroy target creature with power exactly X" would be black until you went over 3.

To me this raises the question of what other scalable effects there are that could/should be of another color when cast with a lower X vs a higher X? The first thing that pops to my mind is that perhaps Clash of Wills cast at X = 1 or 2 should be rather than . Or Spell Blast?