The idea of four color factions has seemingly been as popular as wedge factions; following KTK, we've seen a wedge set, so quad discussions will no doubt be more popular than ever. Studying the design lessons learned from Shards of Alara and how those lessons impacted Khans of Tarkir does bring to mind the design needs of a four color set. The first things that most players will likely think of when they think of a quad set are quad legends, four color legendary creatures, which have been in demand ever since Ravnica teased the concept with the Nephilim. A cycle of four color mythic legends is all well and good, but what about the needs of lower rarities, especially commons? This topic addresses the needs of a large quad set's common design, hopefully to be followed up by future design topics that address higher rarities and eventually the design needs of a small companion set.
First off, we have to look at monocolor cards which, as Alara Reborn demonstrated, every set needs. The average large set includes anywhere from 12 to 20 commons in each color. In a quad set, each color is used in four of the five factions. If you wanted each faction to have an even number of monocolored cards, that means 3-5 cards per faction in each color. But the quad set would more likely follow the tricolor sets' way of distributing monocolor cards: Each color is primary in one (or in this case, two) factions and secondary in the rest, which affects the precise ratio. In a quad set, the likely equation would be two primary cards to every one secondary card, so for example a faction that's primary in blue would get two blue cards to a single card in a faction that's secondary in blue. How to determine which factions are centered in which colors? I think the simplest answer would be the ally pair opposed to the color missing from the quad; so WUBR's central pair is blue/black while BRGW's central pair is red/green, for example.
Then there's the breakdown of color combinations within quads. Between all five quads, every color pair is used three times and every trio is used twice. If we wanted to represent every possible combination enough times to represent each faction, we'd be looking at 30 dualcolor commons, 20 tricolor commons, and 5 quadcolor commons, adding up to a total of 55 cards, over half the commons in a standard large set. If the quad set included that many multicolor cards at common, it would leave room for only 46 nonmulticolor cards, 45 of which could be monocolor if we want to preserve absolute symmetry. That would be at most 9 cards in each color. There's a number of ways to address this shortage: Hybrid comes to mind as an easy way to create overlap cards, but hybrid design space is limited compared to the wider array of effects gold is allowed to get. Soft quad cards with costs like CDE/F could enable four color cards to be played like three color cards similar to how soft tricolor cards with CD/E costs can be played like dualcolor cards.
But ultimately, I think we need to ask: Are so many multicolor cards necessary? The quad cards are mandatory as four color is the theme of the set and we all know the mantra, "If it isn't at common, it's not your theme". Dualcolor cards have also proven successful at helping define limited archetypes, and quads are often thought of as two color pairs welded together. The tricolor cards are the biggest problem; while quads are certainly capable of supporting tricolor cards, they have more inherent complexity than dualcolor cards, are trickier to design, and are not as limited friendly. Since we already have quad cards to represent the theme and dual color to help with limited, I think tricolor cards can be left out of common. That frees up 20 slots, increasing the symmetric maximum of monocolor cards to 13 each, comparable to the distribution seen in sets like Scars of Mirrodin and Shards of Alara, and leaves us with up to 65 monocolor commons, 35 multicolor commons, and at least one common artifact or land.
The set will want a full cycle of common dual lands for color fixing plus a cycle of mana rocks, taking up 15 common slots total. This means that some monocolor or multicolor commons have to be cut. Dualcolor commons have to be cut ten at a time in order to keep the pair representation equal unless we want to replace five with an additional cycle of quad cards, though doing so isn't desirable since quad cards are harder on limited. Monocolor commons can be cut five at a time. Ten dualcolor commons can probably be cut as four color is the theme, not two color, but that means one faction doesn't get represented in all of its pairs. That happens sometimes - Naya didn't get any dualcolor commons in Shards of Alara - but it's dissatisfying when it does.
At this point we might as well restrict the cycle of multicolor commons to 10, which frees up 20 common slots. To help convey the essence of four color in the set, these ten dualcolor cards will each provide bonuses for playing at least one of the other two colors of their associated faction; for example, the UB and RW cards will both be associated with WUBR and can sport off color abilities that involve the complimentary pair. That gives us 15 multicolor commons total, 3 for each faction, along with 10 common duals and 5 common mana rocks, leaving room for 71 other commons. 70 of those can be monocolor, 14 for each color, while the remaining 1 can be an additional artifact or land.
As for the quad commons, another lesson learned from Shards block is that cards that require three or more colors to cast should not be costed as low on the curve as possible as players have a difficult time getting the necessary mana when the card would be at its most efficient. In KTK, all five multicolor commons had a cmc of at least 5, giving the player extra time to build up the necessary mana in exchange for a splashier effect than would otherwise be available at lower costs. In a prospective quad set, we should consider a similar approach as the color requirements are even more stringent; I personally would recommend or be added on to the cost as would just make the card feel like a stealth five color.
This of course means that the quad commons need to be either sizeable creatures or splashy yet NWO-friendly spells; like the tricolor commons, the quad commons may have to forego representing each color equally and strive for a simpler approach, like using one or two keywords that more than one of the quad's colors could use.
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
I feel for-color design is an example of "just because you can do something doesn't mean you should".
If it was going to happen, I think the best suggestion I've heard so far is the "Meeting of the Guilds" idea from ravnical. 4-colors is hard to think about, but 2 guilds is easier to understand, especially if it uses both guild mechanics.
I agree with Stairc; I don't think you need to use actual guild flavor, but since each quad is comprised of one ally and one enemy color pair, and when you split them like this each pair is used exactly once, things seem to line up perfectly for this to be the case.
KTK shows us how you can still do multicolor themes without overloading on multicolor cards themselves. One of the best ways of doing quads is through faction mechanics. If you've got cards in all four colors that have the faction mechanic, they're immediately linked. That's an easy way of making mono colored cards that feel connected to the theme.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"In the beginning, MTG Salvation switched to a new forum format.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
It was at that moment that I realized: I'm kinda just making these things up. We can just write the rules the way we want them to work. People will have fun, and people will get it.
I feel for-color design is an example of "just because you can do something doesn't mean you should".
If it was going to happen, I think the best suggestion I've heard so far is the "Meeting of the Guilds" idea from ravnical. 4-colors is hard to think about, but 2 guilds is easier to understand, especially if it uses both guild mechanics.
This isn't just designer conceit; players want a four color set. And it's fun to explore the design needs and tricks.
I agree with Stairc; I don't think you need to use actual guild flavor, but since each quad is comprised of one ally and one enemy color pair, and when you split them like this each pair is used exactly once, things seem to line up perfectly for this to be the case.
KTK shows us how you can still do multicolor themes without overloading on multicolor cards themselves. One of the best ways of doing quads is through faction mechanics. If you've got cards in all four colors that have the faction mechanic, they're immediately linked. That's an easy way of making mono colored cards that feel connected to the theme.
I have indeed begun focusing on the idea that each quad is lead by an ally pair and supported by an enemy pair. A cycle of four color commons is a must, but to provide access to additional four color identity cards I was thinking of CD commons with EF bonuses somewhere on the card, like the following:
Snowfield RescuerWU
Creature - Human Scout
Flash
When ~ enters the battlefield, you may pay (B/G). If you do, return target creature card from your graveyard to your hand. Otherwise, you may return target creature you control to its owner's hand.
2/1
Each of these cards is playable with just the two colors in the cost but provide bonuses if you run another color, ideally so that other quads can play them too. Snowfield Rescuer for example is playable in WUBR or RGWU along with BWUG.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
Something you'll need to think about is how hard you want to push specifically four color strategies. For instance, KTK has three color factions that lead the design, but in practice limited is somewhat evenly split between 2, 3, & 4 color decks. It's going to be very challenging to make a format where people play 4 color decks regularly and don't just end up playing 5 (KTK is only a tri-color set and 5 color is still quite common). The world and mechanics may be aligned along four color factions, but you may want to think about ways to center limited around 3 or 2.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"In the beginning, MTG Salvation switched to a new forum format.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
It was at that moment that I realized: I'm kinda just making these things up. We can just write the rules the way we want them to work. People will have fun, and people will get it.
For starters, color pairs play a very big role in the set, with the current plan being to include a full cycle of ten CD commons, one for each pair, plus a cycle of ten off-color cards, following a clockwise pattern (a W card with U ability, W card with B ability, U card with B ability, U card with R ability, and so on). Indeed, the design has the allied pairs each lead a quad with the complimentary enemy pair supporting it. So WUBR is lead by UB and supported by RW, for example. To give the enemiy pairs their time in the limelight, I'm thinking the small followup set can invert the situation with enemy pairs leading and ally pairs supporting.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
This isn't just designer conceit; players want a four color set. And it's fun to explore the design needs and tricks.
Players claim to want all sorts of things. Enchantment Block, for example, or more Cipher cards of higher power level. Or more storm. It doesn't mean that the resulting gameplay is going to be positive.
You can absolutely make some four-color designs work. Snowfield Rescuer works reasonably well - though it's also pretty unnecessary. You could make this card in mono-green. Green gets 2 mana 2/1 flash creatures. White doesn't need to be here at all either. I can see the argument of making sure that more decks get to play it, hence the hybrid triggered ability, but it doesn't really work like that - because you need to play this in a deck running blue and white. Additionally, it doesn't do a good job supporting the 4-color-identity on its own, as it reads more like a card that is either "Esper or Bant" - just like the hybrid cards in Fate Reforged read like cards that are either allied color or enemy color - which fits the bridge-between-two-sets theme. There's a reason they didn't use hybrid in Khans.
Not to say you should stop the project or anything, it's great to explore weird new space. Go for it. Just want to bear in mind these challenges as you search for the perfect solution.
For starters, color pairs play a very big role in the set, with the current plan being to include a full cycle of ten CD commons, one for each pair, plus a cycle of ten off-color cards, following a clockwise pattern (a W card with U ability, W card with B ability, U card with B ability, U card with R ability, and so on). Indeed, the design has the allied pairs each lead a quad with the complimentary enemy pair supporting it. So WUBR is lead by UB and supported by RW, for example. To give the enemiy pairs their time in the limelight, I'm thinking the small followup set can invert the situation with enemy pairs leading and ally pairs supporting.
This is fine in theory, but in actuality this doesn't really make it a four color format. If you're giving me two color pairs, I'm far more likely to make a 3 color deck; a Bant combination gives me access to WU, UG, and GW cards, as well as both WU(B/G) and GW(U/R) cards like your example. You may be encouraging four color in an abstract sense, but when it comes to actually playing with the cards there's really no incentive to be all four colors.
This is what makes four colors so hard to design for, and why it may not actually be possible to create a good four color format that doesn't just become a five color format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"In the beginning, MTG Salvation switched to a new forum format.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
It was at that moment that I realized: I'm kinda just making these things up. We can just write the rules the way we want them to work. People will have fun, and people will get it.
Does a tricolor set require that players play three colors? No, it just makes it practical. If players prefer playing pairs or trios in a quad set, it's their right to do so. What a quad set needs to do is make playing four colors possible, not necessary. If that means two and three color decks are also highly playable, then the set's just giving players all the more options for deckbuilding.
Because the ally-enemy split does such a good job of distributing the color pairs between the factions, I'm thinking using those pairs to reinforce quad identity is a good idea. UB and RW cards are chiefly WUBR and GW and UR cards are chiefly RGWU for example. That said, each color pair is usable by three factions, so many of the pair-aligned cards are designed to play well in the other factions as well. Monocolor cards with off-color abilities can be used to represent secondary pairs in a quad, like a blue card with an ability requiring red mana in WUBR.
I'm also open to the idea of using hybrid mana, though I'm thinking of saving most of it for the second set. I am interested in using twobrid mana to make the four color commons easier to play, with costs like (2/R)(2/W)UB where the primary color pair is necessary but the secondary pair is not. Again, though, that might be better for set 2.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
I don't think R&D is ever going to do a whole set of four colors. The number one reason being that they don't want tournaments where almost everyone plays 4 or 5 colored decks. They have many cycles of dual lands, but much fewer cycles of tri lands. Quad lands I think are undoable.
The only four colored card that could be common would be a 4 mana vanilla creature. Maybe, black and white mana cost, then blue and green activated ability to gain trample and flying until end of turn. But, there are already creatures like that in single color, why do it in four colors?
Enchantments, artifacts, lands, instants and sorceries are impossible to do at common and four colors. If you make it simple, 2 or 3 lines, it's too much colors for such effect. If you make it complex, it's rare, too complex for common or uncommon.
If the card is non permanent, I can only see it being: split card, or four modes to choose from, or kickers, the card costs two colors and has a kicker of another two colors to do a secondary effect. Either case, too much for common.
If the card is a permanent: double face, or pairs that care for another pair (say, a black and blue creature that cares about white and red creatures), or four abilities, one for each color, or two colors and two abilities of two colors (say, blue and white cost, one ability is red and blue, the other is white and green). Not doable at common and hard to fit for uncommon.
Hybrid mana highgest color count is three, one color plus one hybrid. Two hybrid and it becomes pure color identity crysis. For ex: white, green and blak have access to life gain. But imagine a creature that costs one triple hybrid and when enters the battlefield, you gain 1 life. It can be white or green, but black doesn't do that. If you add "opponent loses life", then it can't be green. That must be what R&D has found out when they tested triple hybrid.
If the card can be white and/or black and/or green, why not make it an artifact? Reaper King is both colorless and five colored, but that is only possible due to how close artifacts and five colored cards are in the color pie. Colorless is something that any color can do, while five colored is something that all colors combined can do.
The Nephelim were made before the popularity of commander. They just feel overdone, because their abilities are too much close to existing three colored or five colored creatures. They picked up an ability that is two colors and forcibly made it four colors by making it trigger or care about things that the extra two colors care.
Four colors, for the sake of "eveness", has to be a card design where there is either one effect that is four colors, or two effects that each fall under one of the pairs of the quad, or four effects. If you do three effects, then one color is going to bleed more than the other three, making it odd.
I don't think R&D is ever going to do a whole set of four colors. The number one reason being that they don't want tournaments where almost everyone plays 4 or 5 colored decks. They have many cycles of dual lands, but much fewer cycles of tri lands. Quad lands I think are undoable.
Lands that tap for C,D,E, or F would be difficult to do, but between trilands and lands that can produce any color they're not impossible. The trick is finding a drawback that works. The most elegant solution I've found is to treat the quad land like a double dual, producing two different pairs with some kind of restriction. Nimbus Maze-inspired templates and "Payland" templates come to mind, the latter working a lot like a Painland but replacing the ability with a default color pair.
The only four colored card that could be common would be a 4 mana vanilla creature. Maybe, black and white mana cost, then blue and green activated ability to gain trample and flying until end of turn. But, there are already creatures like that in single color, why do it in four colors?
Vanillas would be a terrible way to do four color creatures, especially as a cycle. Multicolor cards don't always use all their colors, see Rhox War Monk and Abzan Guide as examples. With four color commons, you have the benefit of using color pairs as the base for the abilities. Beyond that, you also need to keep the quad faction's mechanical direction in mind.
Enchantments, artifacts, lands, instants and sorceries are impossible to do at common and four colors. If you make it simple, 2 or 3 lines, it's too much colors for such effect. If you make it complex, it's rare, too complex for common or uncommon.
Again, I protest the impossible part, but I will concur that creatures are generally the best choices for representing multicolor at common since they have more design options than other card types and also represent the flavor of their faction the best.
If the card is non permanent, I can only see it being: split card, or four modes to choose from, or kickers, the card costs two colors and has a kicker of another two colors to do a secondary effect. Either case, too much for common.
Split cards are not ideal for common. Four modes are also a little too complex. Kicker is doable as you can create simple effects through overlaps but that's assuming you want Kicker as a mechanic in your set.
If the card is a permanent: double face, or pairs that care for another pair (say, a black and blue creature that cares about white and red creatures), or four abilities, one for each color, or two colors and two abilities of two colors (say, blue and white cost, one ability is red and blue, the other is white and green). Not doable at common and hard to fit for uncommon.
Double face doesn't really help unless you need additional colors to access the other side. Again, overlaps between colors in a pair really helps. You don't need a red ability and a green ability if trample works for the card. And multicolor cards don't have to represent every color mechanically all the time; it's most important that the card matches the feel of its faction. The fact that all the colors in the faction will have access to the faction's mechanic helps as it gives you an option to fall back on for simplicity's sake.
Hybrid mana highgest color count is three, one color plus one hybrid. Two hybrid and it becomes pure color identity crysis. For ex: white, green and blak have access to life gain. But imagine a creature that costs one triple hybrid and when enters the battlefield, you gain 1 life. It can be white or green, but black doesn't do that. If you add "opponent loses life", then it can't be green. That must be what R&D has found out when they tested triple hybrid.
Multiple color pair hybrid isn't recommendable, but twobrid is a slightly different matter. (2/U)(2/R)GW isn't as taxing as (G/W)(U/R) would be, though it does restrict the range of effects the card can have. There's also GW(U/R), an extension of the CD/E template seen in Alara Reborn.
If the card can be white and/or black and/or green, why not make it an artifact? Reaper King is both colorless and five colored, but that is only possible due to how close artifacts and five colored cards are in the color pie. Colorless is something that any color can do, while five colored is something that all colors combined can do.
A card being an artifact doesn't automatically change what it can do mechanically. Multicolor is multicolor.
The Nephelim were made before the popularity of commander. They just feel overdone, because their abilities are too much close to existing three colored or five colored creatures. They picked up an ability that is two colors and forcibly made it four colors by making it trigger or care about things that the extra two colors care.
I thought the Nephilim were pretty darn elegant from a mechanical standpoint, actually. The weirdest one was Witch-Maw Nephilim, as it feels pretty close to monogreen in effect.
Four colors, for the sake of "eveness", has to be a card design where there is either one effect that is four colors, or two effects that each fall under one of the pairs of the quad, or four effects. If you do three effects, then one color is going to bleed more than the other three, making it odd.
That, or one of the abilities comes from two colors, most likely the dominant pair, while the other two each come from one color. Since one pair is likely to be dominant in a manner akin to how one color tends to be dominant in a tricolor faction, four color cards with three abilities can actually make a lot of sense.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
I know this is a necrobump, but I'm so glad I found this thread. I'm currently designing a card game with 6 "colors", and was having a headache on how to get a 3 color set to work. A 4 color set would allow for more equal representation of each color, but would be a headache to justify and build around. The idea of abusing hybrid mana and activated ability costs makes so much sense, I don't know why I didn't think of it before. I only have one faction fleshed out flavor-wise, and the set was already built around the idea of each faction being composed of two pairs in conflict. I think this would be the perfect step up to a 4 color design and I'm really curious to know what ideas people have come up with since this thread.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
First off, we have to look at monocolor cards which, as Alara Reborn demonstrated, every set needs. The average large set includes anywhere from 12 to 20 commons in each color. In a quad set, each color is used in four of the five factions. If you wanted each faction to have an even number of monocolored cards, that means 3-5 cards per faction in each color. But the quad set would more likely follow the tricolor sets' way of distributing monocolor cards: Each color is primary in one (or in this case, two) factions and secondary in the rest, which affects the precise ratio. In a quad set, the likely equation would be two primary cards to every one secondary card, so for example a faction that's primary in blue would get two blue cards to a single card in a faction that's secondary in blue. How to determine which factions are centered in which colors? I think the simplest answer would be the ally pair opposed to the color missing from the quad; so WUBR's central pair is blue/black while BRGW's central pair is red/green, for example.
Then there's the breakdown of color combinations within quads. Between all five quads, every color pair is used three times and every trio is used twice. If we wanted to represent every possible combination enough times to represent each faction, we'd be looking at 30 dualcolor commons, 20 tricolor commons, and 5 quadcolor commons, adding up to a total of 55 cards, over half the commons in a standard large set. If the quad set included that many multicolor cards at common, it would leave room for only 46 nonmulticolor cards, 45 of which could be monocolor if we want to preserve absolute symmetry. That would be at most 9 cards in each color. There's a number of ways to address this shortage: Hybrid comes to mind as an easy way to create overlap cards, but hybrid design space is limited compared to the wider array of effects gold is allowed to get. Soft quad cards with costs like CDE/F could enable four color cards to be played like three color cards similar to how soft tricolor cards with CD/E costs can be played like dualcolor cards.
But ultimately, I think we need to ask: Are so many multicolor cards necessary? The quad cards are mandatory as four color is the theme of the set and we all know the mantra, "If it isn't at common, it's not your theme". Dualcolor cards have also proven successful at helping define limited archetypes, and quads are often thought of as two color pairs welded together. The tricolor cards are the biggest problem; while quads are certainly capable of supporting tricolor cards, they have more inherent complexity than dualcolor cards, are trickier to design, and are not as limited friendly. Since we already have quad cards to represent the theme and dual color to help with limited, I think tricolor cards can be left out of common. That frees up 20 slots, increasing the symmetric maximum of monocolor cards to 13 each, comparable to the distribution seen in sets like Scars of Mirrodin and Shards of Alara, and leaves us with up to 65 monocolor commons, 35 multicolor commons, and at least one common artifact or land.
The set will want a full cycle of common dual lands for color fixing plus a cycle of mana rocks, taking up 15 common slots total. This means that some monocolor or multicolor commons have to be cut. Dualcolor commons have to be cut ten at a time in order to keep the pair representation equal unless we want to replace five with an additional cycle of quad cards, though doing so isn't desirable since quad cards are harder on limited. Monocolor commons can be cut five at a time. Ten dualcolor commons can probably be cut as four color is the theme, not two color, but that means one faction doesn't get represented in all of its pairs. That happens sometimes - Naya didn't get any dualcolor commons in Shards of Alara - but it's dissatisfying when it does.
At this point we might as well restrict the cycle of multicolor commons to 10, which frees up 20 common slots. To help convey the essence of four color in the set, these ten dualcolor cards will each provide bonuses for playing at least one of the other two colors of their associated faction; for example, the UB and RW cards will both be associated with WUBR and can sport off color abilities that involve the complimentary pair. That gives us 15 multicolor commons total, 3 for each faction, along with 10 common duals and 5 common mana rocks, leaving room for 71 other commons. 70 of those can be monocolor, 14 for each color, while the remaining 1 can be an additional artifact or land.
As for the quad commons, another lesson learned from Shards block is that cards that require three or more colors to cast should not be costed as low on the curve as possible as players have a difficult time getting the necessary mana when the card would be at its most efficient. In KTK, all five multicolor commons had a cmc of at least 5, giving the player extra time to build up the necessary mana in exchange for a splashier effect than would otherwise be available at lower costs. In a prospective quad set, we should consider a similar approach as the color requirements are even more stringent; I personally would recommend or be added on to the cost as would just make the card feel like a stealth five color.
This of course means that the quad commons need to be either sizeable creatures or splashy yet NWO-friendly spells; like the tricolor commons, the quad commons may have to forego representing each color equally and strive for a simpler approach, like using one or two keywords that more than one of the quad's colors could use.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
If it was going to happen, I think the best suggestion I've heard so far is the "Meeting of the Guilds" idea from ravnical. 4-colors is hard to think about, but 2 guilds is easier to understand, especially if it uses both guild mechanics.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
KTK shows us how you can still do multicolor themes without overloading on multicolor cards themselves. One of the best ways of doing quads is through faction mechanics. If you've got cards in all four colors that have the faction mechanic, they're immediately linked. That's an easy way of making mono colored cards that feel connected to the theme.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Comic Book Set
Archester: Frontier of Steam (A steampunk set!)
A Good Place to Start Designing
This isn't just designer conceit; players want a four color set. And it's fun to explore the design needs and tricks.
I have indeed begun focusing on the idea that each quad is lead by an ally pair and supported by an enemy pair. A cycle of four color commons is a must, but to provide access to additional four color identity cards I was thinking of CD commons with EF bonuses somewhere on the card, like the following:
Snowfield Rescuer WU
Creature - Human Scout
Flash
When ~ enters the battlefield, you may pay (B/G). If you do, return target creature card from your graveyard to your hand. Otherwise, you may return target creature you control to its owner's hand.
2/1
Each of these cards is playable with just the two colors in the cost but provide bonuses if you run another color, ideally so that other quads can play them too. Snowfield Rescuer for example is playable in WUBR or RGWU along with BWUG.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Comic Book Set
Archester: Frontier of Steam (A steampunk set!)
A Good Place to Start Designing
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
Players claim to want all sorts of things. Enchantment Block, for example, or more Cipher cards of higher power level. Or more storm. It doesn't mean that the resulting gameplay is going to be positive.
You can absolutely make some four-color designs work. Snowfield Rescuer works reasonably well - though it's also pretty unnecessary. You could make this card in mono-green. Green gets 2 mana 2/1 flash creatures. White doesn't need to be here at all either. I can see the argument of making sure that more decks get to play it, hence the hybrid triggered ability, but it doesn't really work like that - because you need to play this in a deck running blue and white. Additionally, it doesn't do a good job supporting the 4-color-identity on its own, as it reads more like a card that is either "Esper or Bant" - just like the hybrid cards in Fate Reforged read like cards that are either allied color or enemy color - which fits the bridge-between-two-sets theme. There's a reason they didn't use hybrid in Khans.
Not to say you should stop the project or anything, it's great to explore weird new space. Go for it. Just want to bear in mind these challenges as you search for the perfect solution.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
This is what makes four colors so hard to design for, and why it may not actually be possible to create a good four color format that doesn't just become a five color format.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Comic Book Set
Archester: Frontier of Steam (A steampunk set!)
A Good Place to Start Designing
Because the ally-enemy split does such a good job of distributing the color pairs between the factions, I'm thinking using those pairs to reinforce quad identity is a good idea. UB and RW cards are chiefly WUBR and GW and UR cards are chiefly RGWU for example. That said, each color pair is usable by three factions, so many of the pair-aligned cards are designed to play well in the other factions as well. Monocolor cards with off-color abilities can be used to represent secondary pairs in a quad, like a blue card with an ability requiring red mana in WUBR.
I'm also open to the idea of using hybrid mana, though I'm thinking of saving most of it for the second set. I am interested in using twobrid mana to make the four color commons easier to play, with costs like (2/R)(2/W)UB where the primary color pair is necessary but the secondary pair is not. Again, though, that might be better for set 2.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
The only four colored card that could be common would be a 4 mana vanilla creature. Maybe, black and white mana cost, then blue and green activated ability to gain trample and flying until end of turn. But, there are already creatures like that in single color, why do it in four colors?
Enchantments, artifacts, lands, instants and sorceries are impossible to do at common and four colors. If you make it simple, 2 or 3 lines, it's too much colors for such effect. If you make it complex, it's rare, too complex for common or uncommon.
If the card is non permanent, I can only see it being: split card, or four modes to choose from, or kickers, the card costs two colors and has a kicker of another two colors to do a secondary effect. Either case, too much for common.
If the card is a permanent: double face, or pairs that care for another pair (say, a black and blue creature that cares about white and red creatures), or four abilities, one for each color, or two colors and two abilities of two colors (say, blue and white cost, one ability is red and blue, the other is white and green). Not doable at common and hard to fit for uncommon.
Hybrid mana highgest color count is three, one color plus one hybrid. Two hybrid and it becomes pure color identity crysis. For ex: white, green and blak have access to life gain. But imagine a creature that costs one triple hybrid and when enters the battlefield, you gain 1 life. It can be white or green, but black doesn't do that. If you add "opponent loses life", then it can't be green. That must be what R&D has found out when they tested triple hybrid.
If the card can be white and/or black and/or green, why not make it an artifact? Reaper King is both colorless and five colored, but that is only possible due to how close artifacts and five colored cards are in the color pie. Colorless is something that any color can do, while five colored is something that all colors combined can do.
The Nephelim were made before the popularity of commander. They just feel overdone, because their abilities are too much close to existing three colored or five colored creatures. They picked up an ability that is two colors and forcibly made it four colors by making it trigger or care about things that the extra two colors care.
Four colors, for the sake of "eveness", has to be a card design where there is either one effect that is four colors, or two effects that each fall under one of the pairs of the quad, or four effects. If you do three effects, then one color is going to bleed more than the other three, making it odd.
Lands that tap for C,D,E, or F would be difficult to do, but between trilands and lands that can produce any color they're not impossible. The trick is finding a drawback that works. The most elegant solution I've found is to treat the quad land like a double dual, producing two different pairs with some kind of restriction. Nimbus Maze-inspired templates and "Payland" templates come to mind, the latter working a lot like a Painland but replacing the ability with a default color pair.
Vanillas would be a terrible way to do four color creatures, especially as a cycle. Multicolor cards don't always use all their colors, see Rhox War Monk and Abzan Guide as examples. With four color commons, you have the benefit of using color pairs as the base for the abilities. Beyond that, you also need to keep the quad faction's mechanical direction in mind.
Again, I protest the impossible part, but I will concur that creatures are generally the best choices for representing multicolor at common since they have more design options than other card types and also represent the flavor of their faction the best.
Split cards are not ideal for common. Four modes are also a little too complex. Kicker is doable as you can create simple effects through overlaps but that's assuming you want Kicker as a mechanic in your set.
Double face doesn't really help unless you need additional colors to access the other side. Again, overlaps between colors in a pair really helps. You don't need a red ability and a green ability if trample works for the card. And multicolor cards don't have to represent every color mechanically all the time; it's most important that the card matches the feel of its faction. The fact that all the colors in the faction will have access to the faction's mechanic helps as it gives you an option to fall back on for simplicity's sake.
Multiple color pair hybrid isn't recommendable, but twobrid is a slightly different matter. (2/U)(2/R)GW isn't as taxing as (G/W)(U/R) would be, though it does restrict the range of effects the card can have. There's also GW(U/R), an extension of the CD/E template seen in Alara Reborn.
A card being an artifact doesn't automatically change what it can do mechanically. Multicolor is multicolor.
I thought the Nephilim were pretty darn elegant from a mechanical standpoint, actually. The weirdest one was Witch-Maw Nephilim, as it feels pretty close to monogreen in effect.
That, or one of the abilities comes from two colors, most likely the dominant pair, while the other two each come from one color. Since one pair is likely to be dominant in a manner akin to how one color tends to be dominant in a tricolor faction, four color cards with three abilities can actually make a lot of sense.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.