Witch's Mist

Enchantment

(2)(Black), Tap: Destroy target creature that was dealt damage this turn.

Legality

Format	Legality
1v1 Commander	Legal
Archenemy	Legal
Block Constructed	Legal
Canadian Highlander	Legal
Casual	Legal
Commander / EDH	Legal
Commander: Rule 0	Legal
Custom	Legal
Duel Commander	Legal
Highlander	Legal
Legacy	Legal
Leviathan	Legal
Limited	Legal
Modern	Legal
Oathbreaker	Legal
Planechase	Legal
Quest Magic	Legal
Tiny Leaders	Legal
Vanguard	Legal
Vintage	Legal

Discussion (12)

SufferFromEDHD on The Color Pie Must Die

11 months ago

Evangelize

Dash Hopes

Basilisk Collar > Bladebrand

Great use of Witch's Mist!

Caerwyn on How come we don't have …

1 year ago

I think the answer is simply “Enchantments* don’t have activated abilities with {T} as a cost”, whereas Lands do. Urza’s Saga does not technically have a {T} cost on the card itself - it confers that ability after the fact, and conferring abilities with a {T} is something Enchantments do with some abundance.

*Other than three fringe examples (Flowstone Embrace, Second Wind, and Witch's Mist) from Future Sight, a set which purposefully was showing things Wizards could do, but did not really want to, so it does not have much precedential value.

Caerwyn on Mancipatio

2 years ago

I have a few problems with the card.

First, from a simple mechanical stance, it should not tap. In the entire game, there are only two mono-enchantments that tap--Witch's Mist and Second Wind. Both of these, however, come from Future Sight--a set designed to do weird things and which is not really precedent for what the game's design can do.

I also think this is extremely over-costed. Not only do you have to spend five mana to cast the card, you have to spend three to activate it, tap five creatures, and your opponent has to agree.

What's more--your opponent does not agree until all costs are paid. They would be able to strike a bargain with you, get you to tap down all your creatures and a significant investment of mana, then renege on the deal after you have committed to the costs. That makes the card problematic from both a risk-reward balancing stance in deciding to activate, and from a general social contract stance, since it encourages folks to backstab their friends.

Caerwyn on Glistening Mists

4 years ago

This should be a coloured Artifact, not an Enchantment, for one fairly simple reason-- Enchantments do not tap.

Currently, there are only two non-artifact, non-creature enchantments in the entire game that tap as a cost to activate an ability-- Second Wind and Witch's Mist --and they are both from Future Sight, which is a set where Wizards was purposefully doing strange things that had never been done before and might never be done again.

I don't think those set a strong enough precedent to justify the inclusion of a tap-based activated ability on future Enchantments. In fact, I would suggest the key distinction between coloured Artifacts and Enchantments is that the former has the ability to tap, and it would be bad for the game to further blur the line between those two permanent types.

gdm1989 on Serial Killer [Primer Included]

4 years ago

discovered this Witch's Mist

Caerwyn on Will Colored Artifacts Displace Colorless …

5 years ago

Flooremoji - I will admit my above was a bit of an oversimplification born of quick writing. However, it got me curious, so I looked into how many enchantments actually had activated abilities that either require the symbol, or require an enchantment or any permanent (since such would also allow enchantments be tapped) be tapped as part of the activation.

The answer: There are seven such cards in the game. Five of these cards are the Legendary Enchantment Artifact cycle from Theros--so they hardly count; the activated ability can easily be justified by the artifact portion of the card.

The other two are Second Wind and Witch's Mist , both timeshifted cards from Future Sight. I would argue these cards do not really count as proof enchantments can't tap. After all, part of the point of Time Spiral was to do strange things that may or may not happen in Magic's future (remember, one of their "future" mechanics was introduced in an Un-set).

So, until enchantments that tap are actualized in a normal manner, I think it is fair to say the general rule is that enchantments do not tap themselves or other enchantments.

CChaos on Horrors from the Deep

6 years ago

NV_1980, thanks. I've only played the deck 3 times since I created it because I rarely get to play EDH (1 day a week if I'm lucky). Also my group is only made up of 3 players.

This deck lacks a large amount of ramp, but there are ways around this by cheating large creatures into play with cards such as Riptide Shapeshifter, Zoologist, Eldritch Evolution, and more. There are low mana creatures which are defensive, thus they protect you early game: True-Name Nemesis, Baleful Strix, Guard Gomazoa, etc. Cards like Wash Out and Whelming Wave help stall opponents and turns.

Overall this looks like a mid to late range deck. However if I was going to remove something for the awesome Sol Ring, I'd start with Witch's Mist.

Snacrifice on Poor Wauki(<15$)

7 years ago

Kaslay Thanks for the suggestion! Yes, unfortunately it's a bit too expensive right now, but amonkhet prices dropped precipitously already so it might hit low enough eventually!

bushido_man96 Kamahl is cheap enough to fit in the deck, but he's too squishy for his 6-drop cost IMO, especially with the budget constraint of poor protection for creatures. THings like Witch's Mist and Gorgon's Head let Tor whack whoever's in the way that's too big to die from damage.