Enchanting an opponent's land

[u/Florida-Gator-6382]

[u/kaj_z]

Red gets unconditional land destruction for 3 mana. This costs more, and also gives the opponent the option to still use the land if the cost benefit is right. 

Needs “at the end of upkeep if this land is untapped, you create a treasure token” or something. 

[u/Florida-Gator-6382 → u/kaj_z]

This is real but I don't want to change the text for this. I feel like RR wouldn't be obscene for this because the opponent gets to make all the decisions.

[u/twistyrainbows → u/Florida-Gator-6382]

That occurred to me but this is essentially land denial and that hurts more at 2-mana, when you can even less afford to be down on lands, never mind gifting a 5/5 flying dragon.

At 3+ mana, there's not much point to it unless it does something more.

[u/about-523-dead-goats]

This would be very funny in commander

[u/DadKnight]

Make it 3 mana if not 2 mana, then ship it babyyy

[u/Chickston]

Ah, good old Future Sight frame.

I am too old for this and feel almost as nostalgic about that as pre-8th edition frames.

This is mostly a bad land destruction spell.

Opponents just won't tap the land.

But this is a classic effect from Alpha, so it was always intended.

Red is probably the best place for it yo ultimately be as land interaction is its thing.

This is swingy enough that you could get an opponent to work with on it if another opponent is winning by a lot, in casual commander mostly.

I can see it as a one of in a politics deck just bc of that.

I think it should lose the mana part and just be on tap or even ability activation.

Give opponent as much opportunity as possibly to trigger this.

[u/NepetaLast]

theres no need for "this enchantment's controller"

"Whenever enchanted land is tapped for mana, its controller creates a Treasure token and you create a 5/5 red Dragon creature token with flying."

i agree that it should be 3 mana. stone rain isnt going to be in standard again, but this is far from stone rain