The Trap Of Too Much Linearity

Comments expressing concern of a linear strategy of "play more enchantments":

"I'm not sure we need an "enchantment block," and that's probably the deepest problem with this set. What is an enchantment? Well, you have Auras, which are basically equipment that don't come off, and enchantment permanents, which are essentially colored noncreature artifacts. That's it. The "land block" worked because lands go in every deck, and the "artifact block" worked because artifacts *can* go in every deck. Something I think you're missing here is that an enchantment creature is not interesting in and of itself. You need to give me a reason to want to put enchantment creatures in my deck beyond "I have cards that linearly interact with them."

Baquina's Regiment is the strongest design, though it's a bit straightforward.

What I want to see from this set: a card that makes me want to play enchantment creatures that does not feature the word "enchantment" anywhere in its rules text. That should be a reasonable challenge : )" — Evan Jones

"I think this set has potential, but what we don't want is some linear reward-you-for-playing-enchantments-fest.

It's easy to make a set where some tag or label like "legendary" or "enchantment" is important because other cards check for that tag and reward you for it, but that kind of one-dimensional tag-checking shoudn't be all.

For example, artifacts in Mirrodin gave you a unique play experience not just because some cards counted for artifacts or checked for artifacts, but also because artifacts are colorless so the existence of a higher number of artifacts than usual affect how you can build your deck, there were Myrs in every color, and Equipment behave differently than other cards.

We have to think how enchantments makes play different. I think Auras would be really important, although I can't tell what." — Chah

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License