"Summon BEING"? Really? Really? >_<
Posted By:
EternalLurker
(2/14/2010 5:36:42 PM)
MTG please make her a Cleric or a Shaman or a Wizard or something other than plain old Human.
Posted By:
mrredhatter
(10/2/2009 3:42:56 PM)
I think she would be a Shaman myself, but it could be any of those classes...
Interesting creature however, but Auras aren't common enough to make her worthwhile...
Posted By:
Guest57443454
(11/25/2009 1:58:42 PM)
I'd go with Druid, because that class has a long history of having female Humans with abilities that key off of enchantments.
Posted By:
A3Kitsune
(3/13/2010 5:14:47 AM)
Goes well in an enchatress deck where you only have auras for the opponent.
Posted By:
tavaritz
(5/11/2011 12:04:18 PM)
I would love to block a big nasty Uril, the Miststalker with her.
Posted By:
Gargantula
(6/5/2012 1:55:26 PM)
O HAY
YOU CAN PACIFISM THEIR CREATURES
AND THEN BLOCK THEM WITH HER
GENIUS
Posted By:
FiveEight
(10/25/2011 11:10:20 PM)
While the ability is fairly lackluster, where Enchanted Being fails in design, it excels in flavor!
Posted By:
ChrisKool
(3/10/2012 11:30:54 AM)
The change from "Summon Being" to "Creature -- Human" kind of makes sense. Back then, humans usually got a class type, and non-human creatures got a race type. So if you think of "being" as a class and not a race, that pretty much means that that the race was always implicitly human. That's kind of supported by the very human art as well. It's also pretty difficult to think of any modern "class" of which "being" is clearly a special case.
Posted By:
longwinded
(10/13/2012 1:18:54 AM)
Most auras give some form of evasion. Also the best way to deal with auras is 2 for 1 with removal.
Posted By:
TheWrathofShane
(7/10/2013 10:23:51 PM)