DemonDragonJ, Red Elemental Blast has been an obvious colour pie break since forever. I’m not sure how that card relates at all to my original comment here.

I agree entirely with what’s already been said by most above, these cards aren’t breaks at all.

They effectively read “target opponent takes X damage unless you’re terrible at threat-assessment or that damage would kill them, in which case they may elect to lose something non-impactful instead”.

If I were designing a card named Aura Farm, with the goal of both paying homage to the meme while also appropriately doing something with Auras, it’s likely be something like this:

Aura Farm Enchantment

Whenever you cast an Aura spell, put a style counter on Aura Farm.

Whenever you cast an Aura spell with mana value equal to the number of style counters on Aura Farm, draw a card.

Aura spells you cast cost less to cast, where X is the number of style counters on Aura Farm.

plakjekaas agreed 100%. It’s also disappointing to see the effects seemingly having no relation to the meme this cards name is based off. Feels like a huge flavour fail.

DemonDragonJ as stated before, white doesn’t get access to sacrificing other permanents. Ghen caring about enchantments is certainly white, but the sacrificing is definitely the influence of the other colours present in that card.

Rosewater Has mentioned it a few times on his blog in the past. I’m not going to go looking through the history to find the message.

I think your revision to your card has made a card that is even less-useful. Cards that only gain life are universally useless, because lifegain does nothing by itself and only means you die slower. I would suggest focusing on the card doing something that actually impacts the game - retrieving enchantments from the grave, for example. Nobody is ever going to play a card that just gains life.

DemonDragonJ

Ghen, Arcanum Weaver and Martyr's Cause are bad reference points. Ghen is a 3-colour card and the sacrifice aspect is guaranteed to be coming from the black and red pips, which are typically able to sacrifice their board without issue (particularly black). Martyr’s Cause is an extremely old card created before the colour-pie was solidified as concept.

It’s also worth noting, that the card draw ability on your card is also a break for White, as card draw is meant to be one of the colours defining weaknesses, and generally effects like this would be limited to “once per turn”.

—————

As far as fixing this card, I would remove both of the sacrifice abilities, as they’re breaks without adding another colour (black) to the card.

The search effect is imo extra text the card doesn’t need, and can be removed entirely.

I would make the last ability trigger on any enchantment being put into your graveyard from the battlefield, instead of just itself. To prevent that effect causing problems you’d need to then have it exile the destroyed enchant, or only allow fetching cards of a lower cmc than the destroyed enchant.

Finally, the mana cost should probably be 2 or 3, instead of 4.

Some thoughts:

• 4 paragraphs of text is a LOT. The best card designs are often the simplest, and I feel this card can benefit from some refinement here.

• White sacrificing other cards is a break in the colour pie (white cards generally only sacrifice themselves, and usually only for the benefit of the boardstate).

• the cards power feels quite low, i’m not sure if that was your intention?

DemonDragonJ I feel like we’re going around in circles here, and you’re not making a lot of sense.

• as stated by the company making the game, legendary cards aren’t built to be any stronger than non-legendary ones.

• as these cards aren’t stronger, there’s no inherent reason for the current rules around fielding multiple legendary cards. This rule is a hangover from the early days in the game where the rules only barely made sense to begin with.

• some very very few cards cause balance issues when run in multiples. It would be good to have a supertype to identify these cards and have the current “legendary 1-of” rules applied to that new supertype

• currently Wotc apply the legendary supertype to every named character, making it unsuitable for carrying any rules weight (because the application of the supertype is arbitrary). Them changing their position on how to apply the legendary supertype going forwards also would cause confusion and do a disservice to all the cards already tarred with that brush.

DemonDragonJ the legendary status as-is only correlates to a card depicting a named-character, so it has no association with whether multiple-copies of a card being in-play may pose a problem. The advantage of that proposal would obviously be to allow Wotc to target specific cards that cause issues when fielded-in-multiples.

DemonDragonJ Mark’s already proposed his idea for a solution, which I agree with as a better implementation (which was, that the legendary supertype means nothing, and another indicator/typing is used to indicate whether a card can only exist as a 1-of in-play).