How is a wall of fire any less of an animated creature than a fire elemental? They're both made out of the same stuff and doing the same thing, but one looks vaguely humanoid because it's in that form, and the other is simply a large flame that acts as a barrier. I can see a wall of insects, or a wall of plants, or a wall of bacteria "showing up" on a lifeform scanner. I always liked walls functioning like creatures. It made sense if the inferno spell destroyed somebody's wall of air or swords.

A fire elemental is an actual creature with a body and a sentience. A wall of fire is an inanimate object on fire. They’re completely different.

i don't like how red's main plan is to be the fast/aggro one, in limited. (once you said that red's plan to deal with enchantments, for example, is to kill the opponent before it's a problem). [wall of fire is a nice start -- a favourite core set card of mine]. i know red doesn't plan long term like blue, but does it really mean that it has to be pigeonholed to have to be so fast -- especially when ALL other colours [except black these days] can do both aggro and control in limited?

Red has control elements. Direct damage, for example, is very good for control.

Mark, you've expressed you're dislike for Wall creatures before and though I still like them, I see where you're coming from. If walls were always Artifact Creatures (or maybe Enchantment Creatures for things like a wall of fire), would you approve of them then? I believe the trope of a wizard conjuring a wall to block things is important in a fantasy game.

I’m not against walls. I’m against walls being considered “creatures”.