Recently, in the Commander forums, there's been some discussion about 4-color generals. This has been a recurring interest to me, but, as I've been warned for necro'ing the relevant threads here in the past, I've created my own thread for the discussion of 4-color card design! I'll be focusing on commanders in these 5 'nephilim' groups, as they seem to be worth the most effort.
There have been a few approaches to 4-color design, but the main issue seems to be that "quad-colored cards too-closely resemble penta-colored cards."
Let's take a closer look at that statement. From a perspective of color ratios, a 4-color card is 80% of all colors and has FOUR times (400%) as many colors as it doesn't. A 3-color card by comparison only has 1.5 (150%) as many colors as it doesn't. One might presume, then, that a 4-color card will be much more recognizable by what it doesn't do, as opposed to what it does do.
If you extend this mathematical reasoning to the 10 guilds, you'll see that any 4-color card contains 60% of all the guilds and has 1.5 as many as it doesn't. Again, comparing 3-color cards, we see that they contain 30% of the guilds and have less than 0.5 as many as they don't. You can see similar disparities if you look at how 3- and 4-color cards differ with respect to how many shard/wedges they contain. This points to the idea that 4-color groups might be too similar to each other for any real identity. Clearly, quad-colored cards shouldn't be commonplace.
If you look at the 20 penta-colored cards, you may notice that the flavor of nearly every one is domain based. That is, they're 5 colors because there are 5 colors in Magic. You'll also notice that nearly 2/3 of them are Legendary. 5-color cards are similar to 0-color cards; they embody something that each color can do. Whereas colorless cards are restricted to what any color is capable of, these 'domain' cards can only do what every color can. There's very little design space in these 2 groups for that reason.
Expanding on that, it seems reasonable to say that the amount of design space each color group has might follow a bell curve. We would expect 2- and 3-color cards (especially commanders) to have the most area for creativity, while 1- and 4-color cards fall somewhere between. Why then, has Wizards shied away from quad-colored cards?
It's difficult! Outside of Commander, where color identity plays a significant role in deckbuilding & gameplay, there's no compelling reason to create the complex flavor & mechanics required for such cards to prosper. The nephilim from Ravnica certainly weren't successful, and Wizards doesn't want a repeat of them. Additionally, the existence of mana as a resource necessitates a greater variety of cards that require fewer colors. Colorless and penta-colored cards may be flavorfully similar, but one is much harder to cast than the other. Magic, as a game, can't function smoothly with an abundance of highly multicolored cards.
We may see an attempt at another cycle eventually, but it likely won't be for many years at the earliest. Any 4-color cards seen in the interim will have to be player-designed.
Each color has an opposing guild, which is the 'core' for each 4-color group that lacks that color. The sans-white group, for example, is centered around the Rakdos guild. It has blue and green influences, however, which separate it from the Rakdos guild itself. This results in each grouping having a much more holistic worldview when compared to the guilds they're focused on. Each individual color is extremely narrow when contrasted with these larger 4-color groups.
Continuing with the sans-white group, a worldview based on the hedonistic cult of Rakdos for core values may seem extreme - even when combined into guilds, colors still exhibit most of their nature in an intense fashion. So, while pleasure still has a premium placed upon it, the sans-white group is less 'crazed' and more apt to look beyond the immediate.
While Rakdos is the primary guild of this group, it's important to realize that Simic is not the secondary guild. Rather, it's the weakest. It has the least influence among the 6 incorporated guilds. (Rakdos, Golgari, Gruul, Izzet, Dimir, Simic) This is a break from how a 3-color groups typically work. Naya contains 3 guilds, which are located in a curve and are adjacent to one another in the color wheel diagram to the right. The sans-white group contains 6 guilds, with 5 of them adjacent in a curve along the bottom and 1 lone guild, (Simic) opposite them. This doesn't mean that the Simic colors aren't important; it's just that any unique identity it has apart from those colors isn't as important. Any philosophy that mirrors that of the Simic in this case is coincidence.
For the creature type, I've used species/races associated with the core colors and classes associated with the secondary colors. These creatures have a wider view of things though, so a certain amount of intellect is expected. I wouldn't expect rats to be as likely as dragons, for instance. Still, as each of these creatures will be unique, one shouldn't discount the possibility for outliers. Exceptions to the rule could provide just as much or more flavor.
As it happens, green and blue don't seem to have a significant overlap of classes, so I simply used another race of sorts that they share. How the creature types will eventually fit with the cards is something that will likely be decided very late in the design process, along with character background and flavor.
Mechanically, sans-white is quite similar to Rakdos. A general inability to deal with enchantments, the desire to play out its hand, a willingness to sacrifice creatures, etc. These are all abstract concepts, so it's more important for a commander to mesh with them than follow them absolutely. As far as actual in-game abilities are concerned, quite a lot of variation is possible. Thus far, I haven't appropriately balanced this cycle of creatures. (mana costs in particular)
Sans-White[:rakdos:UG Focus // BR Ability]
Pleasure is the only universally intrinsic good. Life is inherently 'unfair', but that doesn't prevent one from improving it. Laws may be commonplace, but that doesn't make them right or necessary. Oftentimes, they just restrict personal freedoms. Anarchism.
Wants cooperation without coercion, but is happy to just look after himself/herself. Somewhat isolationist. Least likely to force others. Benevolent selfishness.
Anarchy GuyUBRG Legendary Creature - Demon Snake
Trample
Whenever ~ deals combat damage to a player, that player discards a card at random.
At the end of each player's turn, if that player controls a creature that dealt combat damage to an opponent, he or she may draw a card. 6/6
Sans-Blue[:gruul:BW Focus // RG Ability]
Marginalized in modern civilization by the elite, who have little empathy for the common folk, this group is championed by freedom fighters. Tradition, self-reliance, and spiritualism are important. The group knows it's right, knows how to work within systems, and has the patience to combat the ruling class over the long-term. Populism.
Wants to live in the moment, to feel. Most comfortable in a static system - doesn't like change.
Populist GuyBRGW Legendary Creature - Goblin Cleric
Battle Cry, Convoke
When ~ enters the battlefield, destroy each artifact with converted mana cost less than the amount of mana used to cast ~.
Whenever a player casts a spell during another player's turn, counter that spell unless he or she pays :2mana:. 3/4
Sans-Black[:selesnya:RU Focus // GW Ability]
Find meaning and harmony in life through the senses. Enlightenment is a worthy goal for any sentient being, and an insatiable curiosity for all things provides the experiences to reach it. Selfishness undermines and corrupts the lives of all people. Buddhism.
Wants people to release their desires, to be one as a natural community. Helps others as if it's a duty. Selflessness.
Buddhist GuyRGWU Legendary Creature - Elephant Wizard
Reach, Vigilance
Players can't search libraries for nonland cards.
:symtap:: Until end of turn, whenever a player resolves an instant or sorcery spell, he or she may draw a card. 4/4
Sans-Red[:azorius:GB Focus // WU Ability]
Bring law/knowledge to the natural world, but only through others. Death follows life, follows death, but the ideal society lives on. Impulsive action subverts this balanced society for a fleeting sense of freedom. Passion inhibits the mind. Corporatism.
Doesn't have a strong desire for anything material. Most comfortable ruling.
Corporate GuyGWUB Legendary Creature - Vedalken Druid
Lifelink, Flash
Monocolored creatures entering the battlefield don't cause abilities to trigger.
:1mana::symbg:: Regenerate target creature. 3/5
Sans-Green[:dimir:WR Focus // UB Ability]
Strive for absolute knowledge and mastery. Instinct has no place in the modern world and is replaced with logic. Science will explain everything eventually. Physicalism or solipsism.
Wants success. A desire to change the world and be remembered for it.
Physicalist GuyWUBR Legendary Creature - Vampire Knight
Flying, Hexproof
At the beginning of your upkeep, each player who controls at least 2 more lands than the player who controls the fewest sacrifices a land.
Whenever ~ deals combat damage to a player, you may look at that player's hand and cast a card from it. 2/2
I'm going to be developing the flavor for these groups/commanders over time, and eventually explore mana costs, names, power/toughness, & finally get into their abilities. Questions & comments welcome! Feel free to offer your own designs, too!
In delving into how the main color(s) of each group affected those groups, I found myself characterizing each group as more of one primary color than the other. Sans-Red (utopianism) was more white than blue, Sans-Black (buddhism) more green than white, and Sans-Blue (populism) more red than green. But wait, that means the anarchism group (sans-white) is more black than red? And the capitalism group (sans-green) more blue than black? I couldn't see hardcore capitalists being more thoughtful than selfish, or diehard anarchists being more selfish than freedom-loving. Of course, the color wheel doesn't necessitate that either core color is stronger than the other, but I couldn't help but consider it. It was subjective, but it didn't feel that way at first. I thought the pattern would continue with each group, but instead it flipped on me! It didn't change though; I did. I was wrong.
Naturally, I began questioning my earlier assumptions about how each color plays into each group. The missing color still has that opposing guild, so it really makes sense for that guild to be central to the group which opposes the lone color. I was looking at these color groups from the perspective of other colors. Each color, and each group of colors views the other colors uniquely.
There's a lot here to think about. I'm thinking now that perhaps I don't understand the color green very well. Perhaps being the color of instinct, it's something I can't quite contain in logic. I must consider this deeper... I believe a better understanding of the basic colors will yield a greater understanding of them all.
Each group seems to create its own version of whatever color it's missing. Sans-White creates a sense of order, but without the order of strict law. Sans-Green has a ruthless desire to succeed, an instinct without its primal aspect. Sans-Red, I'm less sure about. It's strange, without the color of emotion. I used to dismiss red as thoughtless and rash, but it's vital. Sans-Black is entirely centered upon the self, yet is determined to not care about its own person. Selfishness but not at the same time. Sans-Blue is perhaps the most difficult for me to imagine as emulating mono-blue. Maybe I'm just looking for patterns where there are none - could emotional action drive one to logic or intellect? More to consider.
Anarchy GuyUBRG Legendary Creature - Demon Snake :xmana::symbr:, :symtap:, Discard a card: Destroy any number of artifacts or creatures with total converted mana cost of X or less. Return target card with converted mana cost X or less from your graveyard to your hand. (unsure about spellshaper ability) ...Evoke, Evolve, Offering
Trample
At the end of each player's turn, if that player controls a creature that dealt combat damage to an opponent, he or she may draw a card.
Whenever ~ deals combat damage to a player, that player discards a card at random. 6/6
Populist GuyBRGW Legendary Creature - Goblin Cleric Non-instant spells gain Suspend 1. (meh) Your opponents may not cast spells during your turn. (too narrow) Each player may only draw cards during his or her own turn. (redundant) ...Trample, Battle Cry, Convoke
Battle Cry, Convoke
When ~ enters the battlefield, destroy each artifact with converted mana cost less than the amount of mana used to cast ~.
Whenever a player casts a spell during another player's turn, counter that spell unless he or she pays :2mana:. 3/4
Buddhist GuyRGWU Legendary Creature - Elephant Wizard If a player would search a library, that player chooses another library to search instead. (can't have opponent's cards in hand) Creatures may block creatures that are attacking other players. (probably not...) If a creature would deal damage to a player, instead that player puts that many cards from the top of his or her library into his or her graveyard. (Eldrazi titans exist) :symtap:: Draw two cards, then discard a card. (meh) :symtap:: Until end of turn, whenever an instant or sorcery you control deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card. ...Reach, Bushido, Suspend
Reach, Vigilance
Players can't search libraries for nonland cards.
:symtap:: Until end of turn, whenever a player resolves an instant or sorcery spell, he or she may draw a card. 4/4
Corporate GuyGWUB Legendary Creature - Vedalken Druid Protection from spells (redundant with regeneration) :symtap:: Target creature gains protection from the color of your choice until end of turn. (redundant with regeneration) ...Protection, Vigilance, Recover
Lifelink, Flash?
Monocolored creatures entering the battlefield don't cause abilities to trigger.
:1mana::symbg:: Regenerate target creature. 3/5
Physicalist GuyWUBR Legendary Creature - Vampire Knight ...Hexproof, Exalted, Prowl
Flying, Hexproof
At the beginning of your upkeep, each player who controls at least 2 more lands than the player who controls the fewest sacrifices a land.
Whenever ~ deals combat damage to a player, you may look at that player's hand and cast a card from it. 2/2
My favorite thing about the Original Post is your idea about a dominant side in trapezes.
I like this thread and what you've done, but I don't think the analyses are as parsimonious as possible. Some of them just seem like lists of stuff that comes between the interaction of colors, but I don't know if it all amounts to a philosophy in itself. Sometimes I just don't agree with the keywords! Some examples:
Mankind has left its primitive beginnings behind. We strive for absolute knowledge and mastery. Personal liberty is paramount. Capitalism.
...Hexproof, Exalted, Prowl
Is personal liberty paramount? Did we leave our feral instinct behind if we are still looking out for #1? I mean, individualism is called "the state of nature" for mankind. How can we consider that that's gone when red and black are there? Plus, white hates personal liberty. White wants that liberty to be fettered.
If I would call this -- how are we calling 4 color pairs? I guess we can call them "a trapeze" for the shape they would make when interconnected on the back of a magic card.
Anyway, I would characterize this trapeze more like the trapeze of SOLIPSISM. There is no nature but the ones we create. There is an order but it is the personal order we impose on the world. Our own sensitivities form and destroy everything around us.
In few words: "There is no spoon."
Hexproof would be great for this color. But so would be other abilities that mean "I don't really care what you are doing" work. Indestructibility, unblockability, the loner mechanics from AVR, cloning, shaping...
I once created my own new Nephilim! Here's the abilities I used for this guy:
"This guy is indestructible.
At the beginning of your upkeep, your life total becomes this guy's power."
See, this guy just doesn't give a ****. And he's gonna make you just part of his vision for the world - that's the white part, the existence of the other and wanting to affect it, but the lack of green says that these rules are not exogenous. I thought it was fun.
Anyway I'm going to stop now because this thread will keep getting more and more esoteric but let me know when there's some cards to see!
I've got a mostly-finished document that's been sitting on my computer for months now, relating the colours and the colour pairs to the 16 Myers-Briggs personality types (I know, I know). If it might help you, here's what I've written about the mono colours:
[E]xtraversion vs. [I]ntroversion
This scale describes your relationships with those around you. People high in extraversion link their lives to others, either for their respect, acceptance or just companionship. People high in introversion derive satisfaction from within, often preferring solitude to social situations.
E: white, black, red
I: blue, green
[S]ensing vs. i[N]tuition
This is how you prefer to gather information about situations and problems. People high in sensing view the world in concrete, tangible ways, prefer specific and practical solutions and are present-oriented. People high in intuition prefer abstract concepts and theories, look for the big picture and don't mind unconventional solutions. Future-oriented.
S: red, green, white
N: white, blue, black
[T]hinking vs. [F]eeling
This is how you prefer to process information and evaluate your options. “Thinking” folks are objective and logical. They want their decisions to be, above all, consistent and efficient. “Feeling” folks empathize with the situation, preferring the decision that results in the greatest harmony and happiness.
T: blue, black
F: white, red, green
[J]udging vs. [P]erception
The most made-up of all the scales, the J/P scale is also the most complicated. Simplified, it measures your drive to exert your will on your environment. Judging people want to change the world based on their own moral code, while perception people take in whatever is around them. J's like to settle matters, and P's like to keep their options open.
J: white, black, green
P: blue, red
White -
White is mainly concerned with law, order, and the welfare of the community. Inherently people-oriented, white is naturally extraverted. White is practical and believes strongly in the rule of law and tradition. Although it cares primarily for the people subject to that law, and it has little tolerance for deviance, White will gently and tenderly nurture those who are willing to toe the line.
ENFJ, the teacher.
Blue -
Blue is primarily interested in the pursuit of knowledge and mastery of the arcane, and only tangentially aware of the people who assist. Blue cares little for what is, as is is simply a temporary state on the way to what could be. Blue probes and investigates everything, and finds emotional bias as immature as metaphor. Beyond its next research grant, Blue doesn't much care about molding the world in its image. It knows that the mere existence its superior intellect will cause whatever changes are required.
INTP, the architect.
Black -
Black is quite interested in the lives of those around it. The lives of those around Black are the greatest tools, are they not? Black is more than willing to set aside whatever personal values or biases it might have for the sake of achieving its goals, which Black is coldly and energetically devoted to. Black has IDEAS and OPINIONS, and Black knows what's right! Critically, though, Black's ideologies are built on a chilly foundation of facts and logic, and Black is both willing and capable of doing whatever necessary to “convince” others to play along.
ENTJ, the field marshal.
Red -
Red is interested in the lives of others as well, but is much more focused on experiencing those lives rather than using them. Red lives in the moment, unabashedly and exuberantly emotional. Like some kind of anti-hipster. Red has strong opinions, but doesn't much care if you agree. Red will share them with you, sure, but the world isn't something that's meant to be changed, it's just something that you experience on your brief journey though it. Well, I mean, sometimes something has to be vigorously burned to the ground, but whatever. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust and all that. Red only turns it to ashes a bit faster.
ESFP, the performer.
Green -
Green has one primary concern, and that is the security and safety of itself and its allies. Loyalty is Green's most valued trait, though Green most often stands alone as all of its strongest ideologies are unspoken and personal. Traditions are deeply important to Green, and it's often confused and frustrated when others disregard or abuse them. Nonetheless, when Green is on your side, you couldn't have earned a more reliable partner.
ISFJ, the protector.
In terms of personal emotions/values, here's how I see the five colours:
- White is composed of your social needs. Friendship, love, empathy, respect, shame. White is what social structures and human hierarchies are built from.
- Blue is composed of your curiosity and pioneering urges. Blue is your desire to go places and do things that no one has ever experienced, and your existential need to leave a mark on the world.
- Black springs from all of your selfish urges, for comfort, wealth and power. Black is what makes you give into greed, but it's also what allows you to ignore the difficult, persistent injustices occurring around you while you solve whatever problems are more immediately important to your personal life.
- Red is made up of every immediate urge you feel on a daily basis. Red is what is making me procrastinate by writing this paragraph. Red is also what makes you really [I]care[/I] about things. White or black determine whether you are thinking about your community or yourself, but it's red that makes you act on their/your behalf.
- Green is made of everything that you feel, but can't explain. Green is how you [I]know[/I] things, but struggle to explain to others why. You called green primitive, but I prefer "primal." Green is your intuition and your instinct, it's what causes fear or eagerness without you having to calculate benefit:cost in every situation.
You said your struggling with sans-red, and I think that's because your definition of capitalism is a little broad. I think that both sans-red and sans-green are forms of capitalism, where sans-green is the realm of true laissez-faire individualism/utilitarianism [I](edit: or, as fumar suggested above, solipsism)[/I], and sans-red is closer to the capitalism most people are more familiar with, venturing into corporatism. Sans-red is defined by blue/white, so is focused strongly on progress (entrepreneurship) and hierarchy (the corporate ladder), with strong elements of self-enrichment (black) and go-with-your-gut (green). The thing missing from corporate capitalism is red, which would otherwise be the source of emotional action. The absence of red is what would allow corporations to ignore deeper or long-term, non-monetary costs in favour of more immediate, objective enrichment of shareholders.
A sans-red legend would be a highly logical creature, who is well in touch with personal and societal needs and would be perfectly willing to sacrifice whatever is necessary to attain its stated goals. I'm picturing a dispassionate military commander, or a perfectly impartial mountaintop oracle (able to ascertain the unbiased truth... for a fee).
I like this thread and what you've done, but I don't think the analyses are as parsimonious as possible. Some of them just seem like lists of stuff that comes between the interaction of colors, but I don't know if it all amounts to a philosophy in itself. Sometimes I just don't agree with the keywords!
Is personal liberty paramount? Did we leave our feral instinct behind if we are still looking out for #1? I mean, individualism is called "the state of nature" for mankind. How can we consider that that's gone when red and black are there? Plus, white hates personal liberty. White wants that liberty to be fettered.
If I would call this -- how are we calling 4 color pairs? I guess we can call them "a trapeze" for the shape they would make when interconnected on the back of a magic card.
Anyway, I would characterize this trapeze more like the trapeze of SOLIPSISM. There is no nature but the ones we create. There is an order but it is the personal order we impose on the world. Our own sensitivities form and destroy everything around us.
In few words: "There is no spoon."
I like that. It feels more consistent with how I was internalizing the group with its lack of green. I think each group is most easily read as sans-[color] just as individual colors are read as mono-[color]. As a general name of them as a group, I think they'd technically be isosceles trapezoids, so trapeze seems to be close enough.
Hexproof would be great for this color. But so would be other abilities that mean "I don't really care what you are doing" work. Indestructibility, unblockability, the loner mechanics from AVR, cloning, shaping...
I once created my own new Nephilim! Here's the abilities I used for this guy:
"This guy is indestructible.
At the beginning of your upkeep, your life total becomes this guy's power."
See, this guy just doesn't give a ****. And he's gonna make you just part of his vision for the world - that's the white part, the existence of the other and wanting to affect it, but the lack of green says that these rules are not exogenous. I thought it was fun.
Anyway I'm going to stop now because this thread will keep getting more and more esoteric but let me know when there's some cards to see!
Will do! Indestructibility is something I want to stay away from just because it's such a powerful ability. None of the trapezes really scream "I'm invincible!" to me either. That's something that appears better on artifacts, methinks. I'm still thinking that as more colors are added to a group, that group should embrace a more holistic view of the world (attached) ...though I suppose I can see it other ways too. How does the "I don't care what you're doing" fit? Maybe I'm misunderstanding solipsism, but it seems that reality will still be present and affect you, whether you trust it or not.
I've got a mostly-finished document that's been sitting on my computer for months now, relating the colours and the colour pairs to the 16 Myers-Briggs personality types (I know, I know). If it might help you, here's what I've written about the mono colours:
[E]xtraversion vs. [I]ntroversion
This scale describes your relationships with those around you. People high in extraversion link their lives to others, either for their respect, acceptance or just companionship. People high in introversion derive satisfaction from within, often preferring solitude to social situations.
E: white, black, red
I: blue, green
[S]ensing vs. i[N]tuition
This is how you prefer to gather information about situations and problems. People high in sensing view the world in concrete, tangible ways, prefer specific and practical solutions and are present-oriented. People high in intuition prefer abstract concepts and theories, look for the big picture and don't mind unconventional solutions. Future-oriented.
S: red, green, white
N: white, blue, black
[T]hinking vs. [F]eeling
This is how you prefer to process information and evaluate your options. “Thinking” folks are objective and logical. They want their decisions to be, above all, consistent and efficient. “Feeling” folks empathize with the situation, preferring the decision that results in the greatest harmony and happiness.
T: blue, black
F: white, red, green
[J]udging vs. [P]erception
The most made-up of all the scales, the J/P scale is also the most complicated. Simplified, it measures your drive to exert your will on your environment. Judging people want to change the world based on their own moral code, while perception people take in whatever is around them. J's like to settle matters, and P's like to keep their options open.
J: white, black, green
P: blue, red
White -
White is mainly concerned with law, order, and the welfare of the community. Inherently people-oriented, white is naturally extraverted. White is practical and believes strongly in the rule of law and tradition. Although it cares primarily for the people subject to that law, and it has little tolerance for deviance, White will gently and tenderly nurture those who are willing to toe the line.
ENFJ, the teacher.
Blue -
Blue is primarily interested in the pursuit of knowledge and mastery of the arcane, and only tangentially aware of the people who assist. Blue cares little for what is, as is is simply a temporary state on the way to what could be. Blue probes and investigates everything, and finds emotional bias as immature as metaphor. Beyond its next research grant, Blue doesn't much care about molding the world in its image. It knows that the mere existence its superior intellect will cause whatever changes are required.
INTP, the architect.
Black -
Black is quite interested in the lives of those around it. The lives of those around Black are the greatest tools, are they not? Black is more than willing to set aside whatever personal values or biases it might have for the sake of achieving its goals, which Black is coldly and energetically devoted to. Black has IDEAS and OPINIONS, and Black knows what's right! Critically, though, Black's ideologies are built on a chilly foundation of facts and logic, and Black is both willing and capable of doing whatever necessary to “convince” others to play along.
ENTJ, the field marshal.
Red -
Red is interested in the lives of others as well, but is much more focused on experiencing those lives rather than using them. Red lives in the moment, unabashedly and exuberantly emotional. Like some kind of anti-hipster. Red has strong opinions, but doesn't much care if you agree. Red will share them with you, sure, but the world isn't something that's meant to be changed, it's just something that you experience on your brief journey though it. Well, I mean, sometimes something has to be vigorously burned to the ground, but whatever. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust and all that. Red only turns it to ashes a bit faster.
ESFP, the performer.
Green -
Green has one primary concern, and that is the security and safety of itself and its allies. Loyalty is Green's most valued trait, though Green most often stands alone as all of its strongest ideologies are unspoken and personal. Traditions are deeply important to Green, and it's often confused and frustrated when others disregard or abuse them. Nonetheless, when Green is on your side, you couldn't have earned a more reliable partner.
ISFJ, the protector.
I'll certainly be taking a closer look at this. Thanks!
In terms of personal emotions/values, here's how I see the five colours:
- White is composed of your social needs. Friendship, love, empathy, respect, shame. White is what social structures and human hierarchies are built from.
- Blue is composed of your curiosity and pioneering urges. Blue is your desire to go places and do things that no one has ever experienced, and your existential need to leave a mark on the world.
- Black springs from all of your selfish urges, for comfort, wealth and power. Black is what makes you give into greed, but it's also what allows you to ignore the difficult, persistent injustices occurring around you while you solve whatever problems are more immediately important to your personal life.
- Red is made up of every immediate urge you feel on a daily basis. Red is what is making me procrastinate by writing this paragraph. Red is also what makes you really [I]care[/I] about things. White or black determine whether you are thinking about your community or yourself, but it's red that makes you act on their/your behalf.
- Green is made of everything that you feel, but can't explain. Green is how you [I]know[/I] things, but struggle to explain to others why. You called green primitive, but I prefer "primal." Green is your intuition and your instinct, it's what causes fear or eagerness without you having to calculate benefit:cost in every situation.
Yup, yup. A lot of that seems familiar, actually. I've printed Wizard's Color Wheel and have been jotting notes on it during this project, but every new way I hear it said, the better I seem to understand it. I hadn't thought of blue as the color of one's desire for legacy, for example.
I called green primitive as I think non-green persons probably consider it that, rather than primal. With each group, I'm trying to cast them in the best light, as described from their own positions. I can look at how each group views the other groups, but I think that'll be less rewarding. There's a different kind of bias there that I'd have a harder time keeping straight with all 20 combinations.
You said your struggling with sans-red, and I think that's because your definition of capitalism is a little broad. I think that both sans-red and sans-green are forms of capitalism, where sans-green is the realm of true laissez-faire individualism/utilitarianism [I](edit: or, as fumar suggested above, solipsism)[/I], and sans-red is closer to the capitalism most people are more familiar with, venturing into corporatism. Sans-red is defined by blue/white, so is focused strongly on progress (entrepreneurship) and hierarchy (the corporate ladder), with strong elements of self-enrichment (black) and go-with-your-gut (green). The thing missing from corporate capitalism is red, which would otherwise be the source of emotional action. The absence of red is what would allow corporations to ignore deeper or long-term, non-monetary costs in favour of more immediate, objective enrichment of shareholders.
A sans-red legend would be a highly logical creature, who is well in touch with personal and societal needs and would be perfectly willing to sacrifice whatever is necessary to attain its stated goals. I'm picturing a dispassionate military commander, or a perfectly impartial mountaintop oracle (able to ascertain the unbiased truth... for a fee).
Ah, excellent! I feel like this is the sort of thing that belongs on those fold-out color wheels that WotC makes. Thanks for the help!
EDIT: Though I agree that sans-red is logical, (lacking emotion) the sans-green group seems just as logical, if perhaps in a different manner. (lacking instinct) Red and green are both opposite blue, so that makes sense... but I wonder if I can more easily differentiate the 2 trapezes on that point. Perhaps skeptical is a better describer for sans-green.
Here are my first attempts at commanders from each 4-color 'trapeze'. No real lore has been developed yet, but I do have some thoughts on which direction I could take each in. My goal was to create exciting creatures with strong ties to each of their colors, without them feeling 'clunky'. I think I was moderately successful - I found that I really liked having a unique ability that fit the core colors of each, along with another ability that took influences from the secondary colors while simultaneously 'hosing' the missing color. Perhaps I can eventually work out a way to better tie some of these abilities together, but they're beginning to look quite interesting as-is. The first unique ability of each is the 'core' ability while the second unique ability is the 'hoser' ability.
NOTE: Mana costs and power/toughness have not been balanced.
Non-whiteUBRG Legendary Creature - Demon Snake
Trample
Whenever ~ deals combat damage to a player, that player discards a card at random.
At the end of each player's turn, if that player controls a creature that dealt combat damage to an opponent, he or she may draw a card. 6/6
This is my least favorite of the bunch. Flying might fit as a second keyword ability, but I'm not sure how I feel about the other abilities. I simply couldn't think of anything that was as groundbreaking as the other creatures' abilities... though I do like that this encourages everyone to attack each turn.
Non-blueBRGW Legendary Creature - Goblin Cleric
Battle Cry, Convoke
When ~ enters the battlefield, destroy each artifact with converted mana cost less than the amount of mana used to cast ~.
Whenever a player casts a spell during another player's turn, counter that spell unless he or she pays :2mana:. 3/4
Firstly, Battle Cry & Convoke seem to work very well together. I tied the variable payment aspect of Convoke into the first ability, while the second ability taxes other players. These colors form the most non-reactive group of the bunch, so casting spells during other players' turns wouldn't likely happen much anyway.
Non-blackRGWU Legendary Creature - Elephant Wizard
Reach, Vigilance
Players can't search libraries for nonland cards.
:symtap:: Until end of turn, whenever a player resolves an instant or sorcery spell, he or she may draw a card. 4/4
I'm unsure if this is technically possible, but it seems rather simple, so I left it. Tutoring in EDH seems to be a love/hate issue, so this could help force it as a discussion topic. The 'resolve' wording on the second ability is to prevent the bad-feeling from using it in response to another player's spell and not having it do anything. This character is meant to be completely selfless. I've thought about limiting it to non-copy spells, to prevent some crazy storm shenanigans. Dunno if that's an issue yet.
Non-redGWUB Legendary Creature - Vedalken Druid
Lifelink, Flash
Monocolored creatures entering the battlefield don't cause abilities to trigger.
:1mana::symbg:: Regenerate target creature. 3/5
To be honest, flash was a last minute addition here. I'm still not sure about it. It's often been said that EDH has been turning into ETB: The Gathering, and the Torpor Orb effect seems to fit best in these colors to combat that.
Non-greenWUBR Legendary Creature - Vampire Knight
Flying, Hexproof
At the beginning of your upkeep, each player who controls at least 2 more lands than the player who controls the fewest sacrifices a land.
Whenever ~ deals combat damage to a player, you may look at that player's hand and cast a card from it. 2/2
Ramping in EDH is another big issue that there aren't many fair answers for - at least for multiplayer. Most mass land destruction spells actually favor the ramper, which is unfortunate. This functions similarly to Natural Balance, in that it only really hurts ramping players. The specter-like ability here is actually the 'core' ability - I'm not sure if there's a protocol for listing abilities in certain orders, but the 'beginning of your upkeep' one just seemed like it should be first.
Only one of the legendaries you made - Non-white - has abilities that feel connected at all. The rest feel like you got a few different hosing style effects, and stapled them together. Not very fun-feeling, you know?
I also think you're too heavy-handed in your "anti-color" approach. Instead of specifically hosing whatever the "anti-color" likes doing, why not focus on what these colors like doing? Roughly half of the effects across of these cards hose, some of them quite narrowly - such as Nonblack and Nonred.
Try to find meaningful and cool ways to interact with the 'hated' color, while embodying what these colors represent as best you can. For instance, here's one of my favorite four-color designs, done by Zuty for a challenge at MSE forums:
Anqulien, the Bent SpearGWUB
Legendary Creature - Angel
Flying, vigilance
If a noncreature source would deal 3 or more damage to a creature or player, prevent that damage and put that many +1/+1 counters on ~ instead.
4/4 Suffering, into strength.
It's a subtle and intriguing ability that encourages you to build around it, make the most use of it, and hoses its anti-color without being too heavy-handed about it. Very nice, in my opinion.
And here's one of my four-color designs, for the same challenge:
Bheuss, Herald of Creation4RGWU
Legendary Creature - Elemental Avatar
At the beginning of your upkeep, each player reveals the top three cards of their library. Each player may put any number of permanent cards revealed this way onto the battlefield.
8/8 Her touch carries dreams to fruition; her breath stirs worlds into life; her voice brings impossibility into being.
Bheuss' effect feels like a combination of all of its colors strengths - red provides the chaotic freecasting, green the love of permanents, white the 'shared' effect, and blue the future-sight style casting. Further, it subtly rails against the flavor of Black (strengh through individuality), which I think is more important than hosing the mechanics of Black.
Overall, I love your thoughts and analysis into the philosophies. But your cards are simply a bit heavy-handed in their approach.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Known as Inanimate at Goblin Artisans, and TyrRev at /r/custommagic!
Lead Tesla, a community set designed by everyone and led by me, over at Goblin Artisans. Index of articles here!
Thanks for the feedback. I do really enjoy some of the 'negative' abilities I've used here, but can understand them being heavy-handed. These are the first cards I've designed in a while, so perhaps I was just looking for a place to stick them. Looking at other generals, it's pretty clear that most (if not all) of these creatures wouldn't jive with Wizards' design policy... unless they decide to do 4-color groups differently. Still, they're too mechanically overwhelming and disjointed. Simplicity seems to be key. Back to the drawing board!
Anarchy Guy - great design, want more Demon Snakes. The wording is iffy, but I like the idea of rewarding aggressiveness, but specially rewarding yours. I think we could make this more subtle too, and exploit that Ophidian connection.
Insurrector l UBRG
Legendary Creature - Demon Snake
Trample
At the end of each player's turn, that player draws a card if an opponent has been dealt damage. Otherwise, that player discards a card at random. The wolf of man. 6/6
This way, trample figures itself into its own ability ensuring some damage, and it also punishes opponents who play passive - with discard, which seems more like attrition to stay true to its BU side.
Populist Guy - This is just a bunch of skills. Also, I don't like how it kinda punishes you for casting it through Convoke. Lastly, I think that if you want to do a proof of concept, you should try not to use other keywords so you can clearly create something that can stand on its own. Inspired by your concept, I made my own thing which is:
Kirchnerius the Rouser l WBRG Legendary Creature - Goblin Cleric
Whenever a creature you control becomes the target of a spell, that creature gets +X/+X until end of turn, where X is that spell's converted mana cost.
Whenever a creature an opponent controls becomes the target of a spell, that creature gets -X/-X until end of turn, where X is that spell's converted mana cost. 2/2
I don't know if the design is really solid, but it sounds exactly like something anti-blue would do. Not sure how useful it is though, and it's probably unbalanced.
Buddhist Guy - This is nice but it doesn't feel too red. I like the idea of vigilance and reach, but I think that undermines the blue aspect of the card as both mechanics are kind of like blue. And, you know, just not too much cohesion overall. Why care about spells if this has the two creature colors? Also the word "resolves" is horrible on Magic text.
Here's my remake:
Lotus ****er l WUGR Legendary Creature - Salamander Cleric
Whenever you cast a spell, if that's the second spell you've cast this turn, you may cast a spell from your hand with converted mana cost X or less without paying its mana cost, where X is equal to the number of lands you control. 4/4
So, we want Enlightenment, and we want it WURG. How about this? Cast two spells, then you become enraptured and you are able to cast a spell for free (as long as its on-curve). Besides, it fits all the color pies - red wants to storm, green likes ramping and caring about lands, blue likes tricking out spells, and white gets to do stuff like this occasionally, although its a bit off.
Corporate Guy - Not feeling this one too hard. I like the idea that it says "NO" to something, but why monocolored? Also, corporativism doesn't need to be represented in modern world corporations. I was just musing about this, and I think the philosophy best described by this is actually Confucianism, kinda. Maybe both. Anyway, a design on this line:
Ren the Acquisitor l WUBG Legendary Creature - Ooze Avatar
Lifelink
The power and toughness of Ren the Acquisitor are each equal to the number of creatures you control. 4, sacrifice a creature: Gain control of target creature. */*
So, see, this works as either Confucian or corporatist. "The one is only as strong as the whole", and the second ability could be read as an altruist sacrifice to improve the whole, or as a corporatist trend towards maximization by downsizing and reacquisition. I really like this dude.
The lifelink I think just works well in the card and makes chump blocking it less desirable.
I'll come back later if I think of a good Solipsist design, but I kinda like the one I already posted.
I greatly enjoy this thread and will be studying it more thoroughly when I have the time. The nephilim issue is one of the most puzzling challenges in all of mtg design and the final frontier in terms of un-utilized colour combos.
My instinct says that 'negative' abilities are definitely the way to go... focusing on the absence makes a lot more sense than the individual preferences of the four component colours. That's the only way to meaningfully differentiate the designs from 5-colour cards and gives a lot of interesting flavour opportunities.
I always find that creating mechanics is a good way to get a feel for an mtg design philosophy.
for example
Sans-W: Liberate- When you cast ~, choose a spell or permanent target player controls at random. Control of that spell or permanent changes to another random player.
I like the idea of 4 color Commanders, and the topic has been coming up so I started brewing up a few of my own. I tried my best to be not only hating on the missing color, but also thematic to at least some of the colors that creature is. So heres what I got so far.
Sans-Green
Matthew of Humbling Knowledge | WUBR
Legendary Creature - Angel Wizard
Flying
Whenever you cast an instant or sorcery spell, draw a card 1WB: Target creature's power or toughness becomes 1 until end of turn.
3/3
It does what a UR card wants and the WB ability hates on what green wants, big dudes.
Sans-Black
Jason, War Perfected |RGWU
Legendary Creature - Mutant Soldier
Jason, War Perfected enters battlefied with one +1/+1 counter on it.
If a creature dealt damage by Jason would die this turn, exile it instead UUGG: double the number of +1/+1 counters on Jason
2/2
the UG ability is their to augment him and make him a better soldier and black wants things to die so I gave him the WR exile ability.
Sans-White
Abby, Authority's Bane | UBRG
Legendary Creature - Werewolf Rogue
You may look at the top card of any library. (You may do this at any time.) 3RG: Target player reveals the top card of his or her library. Abby, Authority's Bane deals damage equal to that card's converted mana cost to that player.
3/4
This one is probably my favorite flavor-wise. White is authority and the government. Abby is designed to take down governments. she has that sneaky innocuous dimir ability to gain knowledge and plan ahead, and in a very gruul fashion, at the opportune time, blows up someones spot, get the knowledge out there, and deal some real damage.
I like the idea of 4 color Commanders, and the topic has been coming up so I started brewing up a few of my own. I tried my best to be not only hating on the missing color, but also thematic to at least some of the colors that creature is. So heres what I got so far.
Sans-Green
Matthew of Humbling Knowledge | WUBR
Legendary Creature - Angel Wizard
Flying
Whenever you cast an instant or sorcery spell, draw a card 1WB: Target creature's power or toughness becomes 1 until end of turn.
3/3
It does what a UR card wants and the WB ability hates on what green wants, big dudes.
Sans-Black
Jason, War Perfected |RGWU
Legendary Creature - Mutant Soldier
Jason, War Perfected enters battlefied with one +1/+1 counter on it.
If a creature dealt damage by Jason would die this turn, exile it instead UUGG: double the number of +1/+1 counters on Jason
2/2
the UG ability is their to augment him and make him a better soldier and black wants things to die so I gave him the WR exile ability.
Sans-White
Abby, Authority's Bane | UBRG
Legendary Creature - Werewolf Rogue
You may look at the top card of any library. (You may do this at any time.) 3RG: Target player reveals the top card of his or her library. Abby, Authority's Bane deals damage equal to that card's converted mana cost to that player.
3/4
This one is probably my favorite flavor-wise. White is authority and the government. Abby is designed to take down governments. she has that sneaky innocuous dimir ability to gain knowledge and plan ahead, and in a very gruul fashion, at the opportune time, blows up someones spot, get the knowledge out there, and deal some real damage.
While Abby's two's abilities match eachother thematically, Matthew's and Jasons first and second ability aren't related at all, which makes them seem 'stapled on' or disjointed. This seems to be a common problem when trying to incorporate abilities from so many different colors. I should really create some designs that make avoiding that a priority. Also, I think Abby's first ability could easily become tedious in a multiplayer game. Do you think it could work with "Your opponents play with the top card of their libraries revealed." instead?
I understand, my starting point was stapling an Izzet card and an Orzhov card together. Not to pleased with Matthew in general to be honest.
The art I imagine for Jason might explain it a little better, one hand would be a dragon's head wielding extreme heat. He is the perfect soldier, he grows stronger and what he defeats doesn't just die, its incinerated, the lack of bodies may even make you doubt whether a battle took place there.
Abby is definitely my favorite here. Yes the ability you stated would probably function better in actual play, but it takes away from the flavor a little bit. Her sneaking in to find secrets to use to her advantage to sculpt the game she wants, and only blowing up someones spot when it would hurt them most or favor her greatly. I'm imagining a game where there is a token deck to your left, and a wrath on top of the deck to his left. Abby can either let the token guy get wiped by the wrath, or you can blow up the wrath players spot, and paint a target on him for the token guy to swing at. My way allows for more interesting deceitful game plays, but your way would simplify it to make it play smoother.
and while I'm here I worked out a 4th one
Sans-Blue
Balzaran of the Old Ways | BRGW
Legendary Creature - Dryad Demon
Players can cast spells only during their own turns.
Players can’t draw cards.
At the beginning of each players upkeep that player reveals the top card of his or her library and puts it into his or her hand. Balzaran of the Old Ways deals damage to that player equal to its converted mana cost.
5/3
This dude is just brimming with hate, and now that I think of it this much hate might be too much. Luckily I'm not the one making the real cards.
edit: yeah, stapling things together does make for some less than elegant designs, but it also gives me an excuse to think up crazy crossbreeds like a Dryad Demon or a Zombie Sphinx.
There have been a few approaches to 4-color design, but the main issue seems to be that "quad-colored cards too-closely resemble penta-colored cards."
Let's take a closer look at that statement. From a perspective of color ratios, a 4-color card is 80% of all colors and has FOUR times (400%) as many colors as it doesn't. A 3-color card by comparison only has 1.5 (150%) as many colors as it doesn't. One might presume, then, that a 4-color card will be much more recognizable by what it doesn't do, as opposed to what it does do.
If you extend this mathematical reasoning to the 10 guilds, you'll see that any 4-color card contains 60% of all the guilds and has 1.5 as many as it doesn't. Again, comparing 3-color cards, we see that they contain 30% of the guilds and have less than 0.5 as many as they don't. You can see similar disparities if you look at how 3- and 4-color cards differ with respect to how many shard/wedges they contain. This points to the idea that 4-color groups might be too similar to each other for any real identity. Clearly, quad-colored cards shouldn't be commonplace.
If you look at the 20 penta-colored cards, you may notice that the flavor of nearly every one is domain based. That is, they're 5 colors because there are 5 colors in Magic. You'll also notice that nearly 2/3 of them are Legendary. 5-color cards are similar to 0-color cards; they embody something that each color can do. Whereas colorless cards are restricted to what any color is capable of, these 'domain' cards can only do what every color can. There's very little design space in these 2 groups for that reason.
Expanding on that, it seems reasonable to say that the amount of design space each color group has might follow a bell curve. We would expect 2- and 3-color cards (especially commanders) to have the most area for creativity, while 1- and 4-color cards fall somewhere between. Why then, has Wizards shied away from quad-colored cards?
It's difficult! Outside of Commander, where color identity plays a significant role in deckbuilding & gameplay, there's no compelling reason to create the complex flavor & mechanics required for such cards to prosper. The nephilim from Ravnica certainly weren't successful, and Wizards doesn't want a repeat of them. Additionally, the existence of mana as a resource necessitates a greater variety of cards that require fewer colors. Colorless and penta-colored cards may be flavorfully similar, but one is much harder to cast than the other. Magic, as a game, can't function smoothly with an abundance of highly multicolored cards.
We may see an attempt at another cycle eventually, but it likely won't be for many years at the earliest. Any 4-color cards seen in the interim will have to be player-designed.
Each color has an opposing guild, which is the 'core' for each 4-color group that lacks that color. The sans-white group, for example, is centered around the Rakdos guild. It has blue and green influences, however, which separate it from the Rakdos guild itself. This results in each grouping having a much more holistic worldview when compared to the guilds they're focused on. Each individual color is extremely narrow when contrasted with these larger 4-color groups.
Continuing with the sans-white group, a worldview based on the hedonistic cult of Rakdos for core values may seem extreme - even when combined into guilds, colors still exhibit most of their nature in an intense fashion. So, while pleasure still has a premium placed upon it, the sans-white group is less 'crazed' and more apt to look beyond the immediate.
While Rakdos is the primary guild of this group, it's important to realize that Simic is not the secondary guild. Rather, it's the weakest. It has the least influence among the 6 incorporated guilds. (Rakdos, Golgari, Gruul, Izzet, Dimir, Simic) This is a break from how a 3-color groups typically work. Naya contains 3 guilds, which are located in a curve and are adjacent to one another in the color wheel diagram to the right. The sans-white group contains 6 guilds, with 5 of them adjacent in a curve along the bottom and 1 lone guild, (Simic) opposite them. This doesn't mean that the Simic colors aren't important; it's just that any unique identity it has apart from those colors isn't as important. Any philosophy that mirrors that of the Simic in this case is coincidence.
For the creature type, I've used species/races associated with the core colors and classes associated with the secondary colors. These creatures have a wider view of things though, so a certain amount of intellect is expected. I wouldn't expect rats to be as likely as dragons, for instance. Still, as each of these creatures will be unique, one shouldn't discount the possibility for outliers. Exceptions to the rule could provide just as much or more flavor.
As it happens, green and blue don't seem to have a significant overlap of classes, so I simply used another race of sorts that they share. How the creature types will eventually fit with the cards is something that will likely be decided very late in the design process, along with character background and flavor.
Mechanically, sans-white is quite similar to Rakdos. A general inability to deal with enchantments, the desire to play out its hand, a willingness to sacrifice creatures, etc. These are all abstract concepts, so it's more important for a commander to mesh with them than follow them absolutely. As far as actual in-game abilities are concerned, quite a lot of variation is possible. Thus far, I haven't appropriately balanced this cycle of creatures. (mana costs in particular)
Sans-White [:rakdos:UG Focus // BR Ability]
Pleasure is the only universally intrinsic good. Life is inherently 'unfair', but that doesn't prevent one from improving it. Laws may be commonplace, but that doesn't make them right or necessary. Oftentimes, they just restrict personal freedoms. Anarchism.
Wants cooperation without coercion, but is happy to just look after himself/herself. Somewhat isolationist. Least likely to force others. Benevolent selfishness.
Anarchy Guy UBRG
Legendary Creature - Demon Snake
Trample
Whenever ~ deals combat damage to a player, that player discards a card at random.
At the end of each player's turn, if that player controls a creature that dealt combat damage to an opponent, he or she may draw a card.
6/6
Marginalized in modern civilization by the elite, who have little empathy for the common folk, this group is championed by freedom fighters. Tradition, self-reliance, and spiritualism are important. The group knows it's right, knows how to work within systems, and has the patience to combat the ruling class over the long-term. Populism.
Wants to live in the moment, to feel. Most comfortable in a static system - doesn't like change.
Populist Guy BRGW
Legendary Creature - Goblin Cleric
Battle Cry, Convoke
When ~ enters the battlefield, destroy each artifact with converted mana cost less than the amount of mana used to cast ~.
Whenever a player casts a spell during another player's turn, counter that spell unless he or she pays :2mana:.
3/4
Sans-Black [:selesnya:RU Focus // GW Ability]
Find meaning and harmony in life through the senses. Enlightenment is a worthy goal for any sentient being, and an insatiable curiosity for all things provides the experiences to reach it. Selfishness undermines and corrupts the lives of all people. Buddhism.
Wants people to release their desires, to be one as a natural community. Helps others as if it's a duty. Selflessness.
Buddhist Guy RGWU
Legendary Creature - Elephant Wizard
Reach, Vigilance
Players can't search libraries for nonland cards.
:symtap:: Until end of turn, whenever a player resolves an instant or sorcery spell, he or she may draw a card.
4/4
Sans-Red [:azorius:GB Focus // WU Ability]
Bring law/knowledge to the natural world, but only through others. Death follows life, follows death, but the ideal society lives on. Impulsive action subverts this balanced society for a fleeting sense of freedom. Passion inhibits the mind. Corporatism.
Doesn't have a strong desire for anything material. Most comfortable ruling.
Corporate Guy GWUB
Legendary Creature - Vedalken Druid
Lifelink, Flash
Monocolored creatures entering the battlefield don't cause abilities to trigger.
:1mana::symbg:: Regenerate target creature.
3/5
Sans-Green [:dimir:WR Focus // UB Ability]
Strive for absolute knowledge and mastery. Instinct has no place in the modern world and is replaced with logic. Science will explain everything eventually. Physicalism or solipsism.
Wants success. A desire to change the world and be remembered for it.
Physicalist Guy WUBR
Legendary Creature - Vampire Knight
Flying, Hexproof
At the beginning of your upkeep, each player who controls at least 2 more lands than the player who controls the fewest sacrifices a land.
Whenever ~ deals combat damage to a player, you may look at that player's hand and cast a card from it.
2/2
Naturally, I began questioning my earlier assumptions about how each color plays into each group. The missing color still has that opposing guild, so it really makes sense for that guild to be central to the group which opposes the lone color. I was looking at these color groups from the perspective of other colors. Each color, and each group of colors views the other colors uniquely.
There's a lot here to think about. I'm thinking now that perhaps I don't understand the color green very well. Perhaps being the color of instinct, it's something I can't quite contain in logic. I must consider this deeper... I believe a better understanding of the basic colors will yield a greater understanding of them all.
Each group seems to create its own version of whatever color it's missing. Sans-White creates a sense of order, but without the order of strict law. Sans-Green has a ruthless desire to succeed, an instinct without its primal aspect. Sans-Red, I'm less sure about. It's strange, without the color of emotion. I used to dismiss red as thoughtless and rash, but it's vital. Sans-Black is entirely centered upon the self, yet is determined to not care about its own person. Selfishness but not at the same time. Sans-Blue is perhaps the most difficult for me to imagine as emulating mono-blue. Maybe I'm just looking for patterns where there are none - could emotional action drive one to logic or intellect? More to consider.
Legendary Creature - Demon Snake
:xmana::symbr:, :symtap:, Discard a card: Destroy any number of artifacts or creatures with total converted mana cost of X or less. Return target card with converted mana cost X or less from your graveyard to your hand.(unsure about spellshaper ability)...Evoke, Evolve, OfferingTrample
At the end of each player's turn, if that player controls a creature that dealt combat damage to an opponent, he or she may draw a card.
Whenever ~ deals combat damage to a player, that player discards a card at random.
6/6
Populist Guy BRGW
Legendary Creature - Goblin Cleric
Non-instant spells gain Suspend 1.(meh)Your opponents may not cast spells during your turn.(too narrow)Each player may only draw cards during his or her own turn.(redundant)...Trample, Battle Cry, ConvokeBattle Cry, Convoke
When ~ enters the battlefield, destroy each artifact with converted mana cost less than the amount of mana used to cast ~.
Whenever a player casts a spell during another player's turn, counter that spell unless he or she pays :2mana:.
3/4
Buddhist Guy RGWU
Legendary Creature - Elephant Wizard
If a player would search a library, that player chooses another library to search instead.(can't have opponent's cards in hand)Creatures may block creatures that are attacking other players.(probably not...)If a creature would deal damage to a player, instead that player puts that many cards from the top of his or her library into his or her graveyard.(Eldrazi titans exist):symtap:: Draw two cards, then discard a card.(meh):symtap:: Until end of turn, whenever an instant or sorcery you control deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card....Reach, Bushido, SuspendReach, Vigilance
Players can't search libraries for nonland cards.
:symtap:: Until end of turn, whenever a player resolves an instant or sorcery spell, he or she may draw a card.
4/4
Corporate Guy GWUB
Legendary Creature - Vedalken Druid
Protection from spells(redundant with regeneration):symtap:: Target creature gains protection from the color of your choice until end of turn.(redundant with regeneration)...Protection, Vigilance, RecoverLifelink, Flash?
Monocolored creatures entering the battlefield don't cause abilities to trigger.
:1mana::symbg:: Regenerate target creature.
3/5
Physicalist Guy WUBR
Legendary Creature - Vampire Knight
...Hexproof, Exalted, ProwlFlying, Hexproof
At the beginning of your upkeep, each player who controls at least 2 more lands than the player who controls the fewest sacrifices a land.
Whenever ~ deals combat damage to a player, you may look at that player's hand and cast a card from it.
2/2
I like this thread and what you've done, but I don't think the analyses are as parsimonious as possible. Some of them just seem like lists of stuff that comes between the interaction of colors, but I don't know if it all amounts to a philosophy in itself. Sometimes I just don't agree with the keywords! Some examples:
Is personal liberty paramount? Did we leave our feral instinct behind if we are still looking out for #1? I mean, individualism is called "the state of nature" for mankind. How can we consider that that's gone when red and black are there? Plus, white hates personal liberty. White wants that liberty to be fettered.
If I would call this -- how are we calling 4 color pairs? I guess we can call them "a trapeze" for the shape they would make when interconnected on the back of a magic card.
Anyway, I would characterize this trapeze more like the trapeze of SOLIPSISM. There is no nature but the ones we create. There is an order but it is the personal order we impose on the world. Our own sensitivities form and destroy everything around us.
In few words: "There is no spoon."
Hexproof would be great for this color. But so would be other abilities that mean "I don't really care what you are doing" work. Indestructibility, unblockability, the loner mechanics from AVR, cloning, shaping...
I once created my own new Nephilim! Here's the abilities I used for this guy:
"This guy is indestructible.
At the beginning of your upkeep, your life total becomes this guy's power."
See, this guy just doesn't give a ****. And he's gonna make you just part of his vision for the world - that's the white part, the existence of the other and wanting to affect it, but the lack of green says that these rules are not exogenous. I thought it was fun.
Anyway I'm going to stop now because this thread will keep getting more and more esoteric but let me know when there's some cards to see!
This scale describes your relationships with those around you. People high in extraversion link their lives to others, either for their respect, acceptance or just companionship. People high in introversion derive satisfaction from within, often preferring solitude to social situations.
E: white, black, red
I: blue, green
[S]ensing vs. i[N]tuition
This is how you prefer to gather information about situations and problems. People high in sensing view the world in concrete, tangible ways, prefer specific and practical solutions and are present-oriented. People high in intuition prefer abstract concepts and theories, look for the big picture and don't mind unconventional solutions. Future-oriented.
S: red, green, white
N: white, blue, black
[T]hinking vs. [F]eeling
This is how you prefer to process information and evaluate your options. “Thinking” folks are objective and logical. They want their decisions to be, above all, consistent and efficient. “Feeling” folks empathize with the situation, preferring the decision that results in the greatest harmony and happiness.
T: blue, black
F: white, red, green
[J]udging vs. [P]erception
The most made-up of all the scales, the J/P scale is also the most complicated. Simplified, it measures your drive to exert your will on your environment. Judging people want to change the world based on their own moral code, while perception people take in whatever is around them. J's like to settle matters, and P's like to keep their options open.
J: white, black, green
P: blue, red
White -
White is mainly concerned with law, order, and the welfare of the community. Inherently people-oriented, white is naturally extraverted. White is practical and believes strongly in the rule of law and tradition. Although it cares primarily for the people subject to that law, and it has little tolerance for deviance, White will gently and tenderly nurture those who are willing to toe the line.
ENFJ, the teacher.
Blue -
Blue is primarily interested in the pursuit of knowledge and mastery of the arcane, and only tangentially aware of the people who assist. Blue cares little for what is, as is is simply a temporary state on the way to what could be. Blue probes and investigates everything, and finds emotional bias as immature as metaphor. Beyond its next research grant, Blue doesn't much care about molding the world in its image. It knows that the mere existence its superior intellect will cause whatever changes are required.
INTP, the architect.
Black -
Black is quite interested in the lives of those around it. The lives of those around Black are the greatest tools, are they not? Black is more than willing to set aside whatever personal values or biases it might have for the sake of achieving its goals, which Black is coldly and energetically devoted to. Black has IDEAS and OPINIONS, and Black knows what's right! Critically, though, Black's ideologies are built on a chilly foundation of facts and logic, and Black is both willing and capable of doing whatever necessary to “convince” others to play along.
ENTJ, the field marshal.
Red -
Red is interested in the lives of others as well, but is much more focused on experiencing those lives rather than using them. Red lives in the moment, unabashedly and exuberantly emotional. Like some kind of anti-hipster. Red has strong opinions, but doesn't much care if you agree. Red will share them with you, sure, but the world isn't something that's meant to be changed, it's just something that you experience on your brief journey though it. Well, I mean, sometimes something has to be vigorously burned to the ground, but whatever. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust and all that. Red only turns it to ashes a bit faster.
ESFP, the performer.
Green -
Green has one primary concern, and that is the security and safety of itself and its allies. Loyalty is Green's most valued trait, though Green most often stands alone as all of its strongest ideologies are unspoken and personal. Traditions are deeply important to Green, and it's often confused and frustrated when others disregard or abuse them. Nonetheless, when Green is on your side, you couldn't have earned a more reliable partner.
ISFJ, the protector.
In terms of personal emotions/values, here's how I see the five colours:
- White is composed of your social needs. Friendship, love, empathy, respect, shame. White is what social structures and human hierarchies are built from.
- Blue is composed of your curiosity and pioneering urges. Blue is your desire to go places and do things that no one has ever experienced, and your existential need to leave a mark on the world.
- Black springs from all of your selfish urges, for comfort, wealth and power. Black is what makes you give into greed, but it's also what allows you to ignore the difficult, persistent injustices occurring around you while you solve whatever problems are more immediately important to your personal life.
- Red is made up of every immediate urge you feel on a daily basis. Red is what is making me procrastinate by writing this paragraph. Red is also what makes you really [I]care[/I] about things. White or black determine whether you are thinking about your community or yourself, but it's red that makes you act on their/your behalf.
- Green is made of everything that you feel, but can't explain. Green is how you [I]know[/I] things, but struggle to explain to others why. You called green primitive, but I prefer "primal." Green is your intuition and your instinct, it's what causes fear or eagerness without you having to calculate benefit:cost in every situation.
You said your struggling with sans-red, and I think that's because your definition of capitalism is a little broad. I think that both sans-red and sans-green are forms of capitalism, where sans-green is the realm of true laissez-faire individualism/utilitarianism [I](edit: or, as fumar suggested above, solipsism)[/I], and sans-red is closer to the capitalism most people are more familiar with, venturing into corporatism. Sans-red is defined by blue/white, so is focused strongly on progress (entrepreneurship) and hierarchy (the corporate ladder), with strong elements of self-enrichment (black) and go-with-your-gut (green). The thing missing from corporate capitalism is red, which would otherwise be the source of emotional action. The absence of red is what would allow corporations to ignore deeper or long-term, non-monetary costs in favour of more immediate, objective enrichment of shareholders.
A sans-red legend would be a highly logical creature, who is well in touch with personal and societal needs and would be perfectly willing to sacrifice whatever is necessary to attain its stated goals. I'm picturing a dispassionate military commander, or a perfectly impartial mountaintop oracle (able to ascertain the unbiased truth... for a fee).
That was exactly my thoughts while I was writing before!
Same word and everything.
I like that. It feels more consistent with how I was internalizing the group with its lack of green. I think each group is most easily read as sans-[color] just as individual colors are read as mono-[color]. As a general name of them as a group, I think they'd technically be isosceles trapezoids, so trapeze seems to be close enough.
Will do! Indestructibility is something I want to stay away from just because it's such a powerful ability. None of the trapezes really scream "I'm invincible!" to me either. That's something that appears better on artifacts, methinks. I'm still thinking that as more colors are added to a group, that group should embrace a more holistic view of the world (attached) ...though I suppose I can see it other ways too. How does the "I don't care what you're doing" fit? Maybe I'm misunderstanding solipsism, but it seems that reality will still be present and affect you, whether you trust it or not.
I'll certainly be taking a closer look at this. Thanks! Yup, yup. A lot of that seems familiar, actually. I've printed Wizard's Color Wheel and have been jotting notes on it during this project, but every new way I hear it said, the better I seem to understand it. I hadn't thought of blue as the color of one's desire for legacy, for example.
I called green primitive as I think non-green persons probably consider it that, rather than primal. With each group, I'm trying to cast them in the best light, as described from their own positions. I can look at how each group views the other groups, but I think that'll be less rewarding. There's a different kind of bias there that I'd have a harder time keeping straight with all 20 combinations.
Ah, excellent! I feel like this is the sort of thing that belongs on those fold-out color wheels that WotC makes. Thanks for the help!
EDIT: Though I agree that sans-red is logical, (lacking emotion) the sans-green group seems just as logical, if perhaps in a different manner. (lacking instinct) Red and green are both opposite blue, so that makes sense... but I wonder if I can more easily differentiate the 2 trapezes on that point. Perhaps skeptical is a better describer for sans-green.
NOTE: Mana costs and power/toughness have not been balanced.
Legendary Creature - Demon Snake
Trample
Whenever ~ deals combat damage to a player, that player discards a card at random.
At the end of each player's turn, if that player controls a creature that dealt combat damage to an opponent, he or she may draw a card.
6/6
Legendary Creature - Goblin Cleric
Battle Cry, Convoke
When ~ enters the battlefield, destroy each artifact with converted mana cost less than the amount of mana used to cast ~.
Whenever a player casts a spell during another player's turn, counter that spell unless he or she pays :2mana:.
3/4
Legendary Creature - Elephant Wizard
Reach, Vigilance
Players can't search libraries for nonland cards.
:symtap:: Until end of turn, whenever a player resolves an instant or sorcery spell, he or she may draw a card.
4/4
Legendary Creature - Vedalken Druid
Lifelink, Flash
Monocolored creatures entering the battlefield don't cause abilities to trigger.
:1mana::symbg:: Regenerate target creature.
3/5
Legendary Creature - Vampire Knight
Flying, Hexproof
At the beginning of your upkeep, each player who controls at least 2 more lands than the player who controls the fewest sacrifices a land.
Whenever ~ deals combat damage to a player, you may look at that player's hand and cast a card from it.
2/2
Would you play any of these?
I also think you're too heavy-handed in your "anti-color" approach. Instead of specifically hosing whatever the "anti-color" likes doing, why not focus on what these colors like doing? Roughly half of the effects across of these cards hose, some of them quite narrowly - such as Nonblack and Nonred.
Try to find meaningful and cool ways to interact with the 'hated' color, while embodying what these colors represent as best you can. For instance, here's one of my favorite four-color designs, done by Zuty for a challenge at MSE forums:
Anqulien, the Bent Spear GWUB
Legendary Creature - Angel
Flying, vigilance
If a noncreature source would deal 3 or more damage to a creature or player, prevent that damage and put that many +1/+1 counters on ~ instead.
4/4
Suffering, into strength.
It's a subtle and intriguing ability that encourages you to build around it, make the most use of it, and hoses its anti-color without being too heavy-handed about it. Very nice, in my opinion.
And here's one of my four-color designs, for the same challenge:
Bheuss, Herald of Creation 4RGWU
Legendary Creature - Elemental Avatar
At the beginning of your upkeep, each player reveals the top three cards of their library. Each player may put any number of permanent cards revealed this way onto the battlefield.
8/8
Her touch carries dreams to fruition; her breath stirs worlds into life; her voice brings impossibility into being.
Bheuss' effect feels like a combination of all of its colors strengths - red provides the chaotic freecasting, green the love of permanents, white the 'shared' effect, and blue the future-sight style casting. Further, it subtly rails against the flavor of Black (strengh through individuality), which I think is more important than hosing the mechanics of Black.
Overall, I love your thoughts and analysis into the philosophies. But your cards are simply a bit heavy-handed in their approach.
Lead Tesla, a community set designed by everyone and led by me, over at Goblin Artisans. Index of articles here!
Anarchy Guy - great design, want more Demon Snakes. The wording is iffy, but I like the idea of rewarding aggressiveness, but specially rewarding yours. I think we could make this more subtle too, and exploit that Ophidian connection.
Insurrector l UBRG
Legendary Creature - Demon Snake
Trample
At the end of each player's turn, that player draws a card if an opponent has been dealt damage. Otherwise, that player discards a card at random.
The wolf of man.
6/6
This way, trample figures itself into its own ability ensuring some damage, and it also punishes opponents who play passive - with discard, which seems more like attrition to stay true to its BU side.
Populist Guy - This is just a bunch of skills. Also, I don't like how it kinda punishes you for casting it through Convoke. Lastly, I think that if you want to do a proof of concept, you should try not to use other keywords so you can clearly create something that can stand on its own. Inspired by your concept, I made my own thing which is:
Kirchnerius the Rouser l WBRG
Legendary Creature - Goblin Cleric
Whenever a creature you control becomes the target of a spell, that creature gets +X/+X until end of turn, where X is that spell's converted mana cost.
Whenever a creature an opponent controls becomes the target of a spell, that creature gets -X/-X until end of turn, where X is that spell's converted mana cost.
2/2
I don't know if the design is really solid, but it sounds exactly like something anti-blue would do. Not sure how useful it is though, and it's probably unbalanced.
Buddhist Guy - This is nice but it doesn't feel too red. I like the idea of vigilance and reach, but I think that undermines the blue aspect of the card as both mechanics are kind of like blue. And, you know, just not too much cohesion overall. Why care about spells if this has the two creature colors? Also the word "resolves" is horrible on Magic text.
Here's my remake:
Lotus ****er l WUGR
Legendary Creature - Salamander Cleric
Whenever you cast a spell, if that's the second spell you've cast this turn, you may cast a spell from your hand with converted mana cost X or less without paying its mana cost, where X is equal to the number of lands you control.
4/4
So, we want Enlightenment, and we want it WURG. How about this? Cast two spells, then you become enraptured and you are able to cast a spell for free (as long as its on-curve). Besides, it fits all the color pies - red wants to storm, green likes ramping and caring about lands, blue likes tricking out spells, and white gets to do stuff like this occasionally, although its a bit off.
Corporate Guy - Not feeling this one too hard. I like the idea that it says "NO" to something, but why monocolored? Also, corporativism doesn't need to be represented in modern world corporations. I was just musing about this, and I think the philosophy best described by this is actually Confucianism, kinda. Maybe both. Anyway, a design on this line:
Ren the Acquisitor l WUBG
Legendary Creature - Ooze Avatar
Lifelink
The power and toughness of Ren the Acquisitor are each equal to the number of creatures you control.
4, sacrifice a creature: Gain control of target creature.
*/*
So, see, this works as either Confucian or corporatist. "The one is only as strong as the whole", and the second ability could be read as an altruist sacrifice to improve the whole, or as a corporatist trend towards maximization by downsizing and reacquisition. I really like this dude.
The lifelink I think just works well in the card and makes chump blocking it less desirable.
I'll come back later if I think of a good Solipsist design, but I kinda like the one I already posted.
My instinct says that 'negative' abilities are definitely the way to go... focusing on the absence makes a lot more sense than the individual preferences of the four component colours. That's the only way to meaningfully differentiate the designs from 5-colour cards and gives a lot of interesting flavour opportunities.
I always find that creating mechanics is a good way to get a feel for an mtg design philosophy.
for example
Sans-W:
Liberate- When you cast ~, choose a spell or permanent target player controls at random. Control of that spell or permanent changes to another random player.
Sans-Green
Matthew of Humbling Knowledge | WUBR
Legendary Creature - Angel Wizard
Flying
Whenever you cast an instant or sorcery spell, draw a card
1WB: Target creature's power or toughness becomes 1 until end of turn.
3/3
It does what a UR card wants and the WB ability hates on what green wants, big dudes.
Sans-Black
Jason, War Perfected |RGWU
Legendary Creature - Mutant Soldier
Jason, War Perfected enters battlefied with one +1/+1 counter on it.
If a creature dealt damage by Jason would die this turn, exile it instead
UUGG: double the number of +1/+1 counters on Jason
2/2
the UG ability is their to augment him and make him a better soldier and black wants things to die so I gave him the WR exile ability.
Sans-White
Abby, Authority's Bane | UBRG
Legendary Creature - Werewolf Rogue
You may look at the top card of any library. (You may do this at any time.)
3RG: Target player reveals the top card of his or her library. Abby, Authority's Bane deals damage equal to that card's converted mana cost to that player.
3/4
This one is probably my favorite flavor-wise. White is authority and the government. Abby is designed to take down governments. she has that sneaky innocuous dimir ability to gain knowledge and plan ahead, and in a very gruul fashion, at the opportune time, blows up someones spot, get the knowledge out there, and deal some real damage.
While Abby's two's abilities match eachother thematically, Matthew's and Jasons first and second ability aren't related at all, which makes them seem 'stapled on' or disjointed. This seems to be a common problem when trying to incorporate abilities from so many different colors. I should really create some designs that make avoiding that a priority. Also, I think Abby's first ability could easily become tedious in a multiplayer game. Do you think it could work with "Your opponents play with the top card of their libraries revealed." instead?
The art I imagine for Jason might explain it a little better, one hand would be a dragon's head wielding extreme heat. He is the perfect soldier, he grows stronger and what he defeats doesn't just die, its incinerated, the lack of bodies may even make you doubt whether a battle took place there.
Abby is definitely my favorite here. Yes the ability you stated would probably function better in actual play, but it takes away from the flavor a little bit. Her sneaking in to find secrets to use to her advantage to sculpt the game she wants, and only blowing up someones spot when it would hurt them most or favor her greatly. I'm imagining a game where there is a token deck to your left, and a wrath on top of the deck to his left. Abby can either let the token guy get wiped by the wrath, or you can blow up the wrath players spot, and paint a target on him for the token guy to swing at. My way allows for more interesting deceitful game plays, but your way would simplify it to make it play smoother.
and while I'm here I worked out a 4th one
Sans-Blue
Balzaran of the Old Ways | BRGW
Legendary Creature - Dryad Demon
Players can cast spells only during their own turns.
Players can’t draw cards.
At the beginning of each players upkeep that player reveals the top card of his or her library and puts it into his or her hand. Balzaran of the Old Ways deals damage to that player equal to its converted mana cost.
5/3
This dude is just brimming with hate, and now that I think of it this much hate might be too much. Luckily I'm not the one making the real cards.
edit: yeah, stapling things together does make for some less than elegant designs, but it also gives me an excuse to think up crazy crossbreeds like a Dryad Demon or a Zombie Sphinx.