Freezer BurnURR
Instant (U)
~ deals 4 damage to any target.
Your first thoughts about these two cards will probably be close to "Wow, these cards are pretty aggressively costed for their effect," and "But Rude Interruption isn't red and Freezer Burn isn't blue. Why are these gold cards?"
The answer is this: I want to include these exciting, powerful-for-standard effects at low costs, but I only want them to be accessible by certain color combinations. In this case, a Counterspell that can only be played in a deck with both blue and red mana, and a Char without drawback, but with a more restrictive cost, again only accessible to a deck with both red and blue mana.
The purpose of having five different colors of mana at its most fundamental level is just to make sure a single deck can't have easy access to all the best cards across colors. The rule of thumb is that each effect should be accessible to certain colors, but not others, like countermagic in blue and not red. However, there is no rule that states that a counter spell can't have red in its mana cost, even if it doesn't do anything red, as long as it also costs blue mana.
The important part is that I want to impose a tighter-than-normal restriction on deck construction as a way to control which decks can play these powerful effects.
Nah, the only way stuff like this makes sense is if it's effects both colors have access to anyhow (something like WB, instant, Exile target creature or RGG, instant, Destroy all artifacts). The color pie isn't just contractive, it's expansive, and generally speaking cards that are more than one color should have a reason to be that way, even if it's "all of these colors COULD do this on their own", such as Tower Gargoyle being in all of the colors that get flying on a regular basis.
I agree with your rationale that giving a color access to certain effects is not the most important part of the color pie. Restricting the effect out of other colors is.
This is the justification of why artifacts can do anything. Green decks can play Snare Thopter. But 3G, 3/2 Flying, Haste creature is unprintable. Not because monogreen decks shouldnt play such creature - they can. But because doing so means giving green one extra flying creature over the other 4 colors - and this cant happen.
With that in mind what you are doing is giving UR better burn and counters over the other UX and RX decks. This is strange decision, but borderline justifiable if you want to build variety.
What isnt justifiable is giving UR better burn and counter then mono-R and mono-U. This is total violation of the color pie.
Not a bit fan. If the effect would work in both colors it would be okay I guess, but even then I would ask myself why the spell is not a hybrid spell instead of a gold spell.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Drop your knees to the floor
Hands to the sky
Give a round of applause
For the great Miss Y!
Recent examples of what you mean
Vannifar - she has no business being blue.
Rakdos firewheeler - this has no black.
Golgari BBGG girl - could have been green honestly.
Gruul RRGG dude - could have been mono green.
Maybe in thjs cases 1 pip of off color is not enough, and it nees to be 2+ pips.
1 pip of mana is very easy to splash for (at least right now) but 2 pips are harder. Also probably on sorcery speeds only.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MtG is where you can hate white players or black players, and still not be racist.
When I saw these, the first thing that came to mind was Dovin’s Veto. And there are many more examples (especially in 3+ color cards) of vestigial colored mana coats that serve no purpose except to shape formats (primarily draft).
Polymorph on a stick? Polymorph on a stick! I argue this is a Venn-diagram card where this card not only could have been blue, but even could have been monocolored blue (though increasing the convered mana cost strictly is certainly something green pioneers) or a hybrid card - if they had chosen to supply hybrid legendary creatures.
Rakdos firewheeler - this has no black.
It has been established for a while that black-red cards sometimes replace "target player loses 2 life" for "deals 2 damage to target player" for aesthetic reasons, but more recently life payment and life loss have been purposely and publicly been replaced with direct damage in black on some cards e. g. Skeleton Archer, so you are arguing from a status quo that is about one year old at least, because Dominaria already used the "direct damage in black over life loss" paradigm in Demonlord Belzenlok.
Golgari BBGG girl - could have been green honestly.
Once again Golgari Findbroker features an effect each color individually could have - a well-established and generally accepted design pattern.
Gruul RRGG dude - could have been mono green.
Sunder Shaman is indeed an example that is not strictly adhering to the rules in their straightest form, but uses an ability with multiple options ("artifact or enchantment") to imply that each card type is associated with one color. Red destroys artifacts, green destroys enchantments. Green can destroy enchantments though, so the symmetry is lost.
---
I don't think any of the examples are remotely comparable with e. g. Rhox War Monk which has been on record as quite despised design.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
Polymorph is not toolboxy, not choices choices card.
Yeah i know black deals noncombat damage more now, but this could have been mono red.
Yeah findbroker (ty i didnt know her name) is green. Black can only return creatures i think (there are a few that recur lands im sure of one though). Any permanent is green.
/thats my reasoning
Anyway OP wanted to talk about stronger than normal cards, using multicolor as the "gating" or "catch". The limit. The GRN/RNA cycle arent exactly pushing boundaries, but they are near examples of what the OP is trying to achieve, power of spell is gated by multicolor. I think ive read a maro article that sometimes they really multicolorize an otherwise monocolored spell to restrict it to certain color combos, evem if the additional color does not fit well.
OP's example Rude Interruption however is very very easy to splash for, and a lot of times actually easier to cast than UU. This is why i think a single pip of extra color is ineffective at this.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MtG is where you can hate white players or black players, and still not be racist.
Polymorph is not toolboxy, not choices choices card.
Polymorph itself isn't "toolboxy", but the effect is very well within blue's balpark. Add to that that actual non-"toolboxy" uncontrolable variants on the effect like Divergent Transformation are now considered within red's slice of the pie and it seems reasonable to assume that the less chaotic version is a blue effect that just has yet to be printed on a monoblue card.
Yeah i know black deals noncombat damage more now, but this could have been mono red.
The point is though: It could also have been monoblack.
Yeah findbroker (ty i didnt know her name) is green. Black can only return creatures i think (there are a few that recur lands im sure of one though). Any permanent is green.
Black regularly returns any type of permanent, but noncreature permanents aren't as widespread and appear usually whenever that permanent type becomes a set's theme e. g. black returns land on Zendikar, artifacts on Kaladesh, enchantments on Theros and planeswalkers... well that might be just what we're getting in the big planeswalker set that's coming up.
Anyway OP wanted to talk about stronger than normal cards, using multicolor as the "gating" or "catch". The limit. The GRN/RNA cycle arent exactly pushing boundaries, but they are near examples of what the OP is trying to achieve, power of spell is gated by multicolor. I think ive read a maro article that sometimes they really multicolorize an otherwise monocolored spell to restrict it to certain color combos, evem if the additional color does not fit well.
They do, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's best practice, just that it's practice. And even then you also can find statements by MaRo that qualify this position and add all the other considerations e. g. that its also their tendency to avoid cases like Sunder Shaman if they find an viable execution that communicates the colors better (he didn't talk about that card in particular afaIk, but the sentiment is there).
So, they might add a color to a card to make it more powerful, but they'll always have an additional look at the card afterwards.
The interesting thing about the blue-red counterspell is that there is actual precedence in Double Negative (though from a block that has been criticized for blatantly doing so). One might argue the red allows you to Fork your own counterspell, but the spell certainly doesn't feel particularly red just for allowing a second target. But at the very least this is a true example of "tighter restrictions" on a counterspell since UR routinely is a less tight restriction than UU.
I very strongly agree that a card that tries to create a "multicolored slice of color pie" should also come with certain requirements to how strongly the card is bound to that color pair or at the very least signals the main color strongly. As such I doubt a card with converted mana cost 2 can do this justice.
Overall I lean towards allowing reasonable exceptions, but not making it a general rule - so the card would have to always pass additional scrutiny even before a reprint and just be considered allowed for an environment. Even then I'd rather add "If ~ deals damage to a player, look at that player's hand." to Freezer Burn and rename it appropriately than keep it as it is.
An underreported issue is communicating the concept of the color pie correctly and the proposed spells don't do that anymore.
I've encountered a similar question when comparing twobryd spells with hybrid spells, though that's another can of worms.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
Usually when they print a multicolor card that could be just one color, it's because the added colors are good in what the card does, such that it's justified the dual color deck is better at then the the monocolor. This is not limited by the method but more broadly what the color is meant to do.
Prime exemple is Terminate, which is better then any mono-B version of 'destroy target creature', despite the effect begin exclusively black. The reason is that since red is also good in spot removal (despite the method being damage and not unconditional destruction), it's justified that BR could get better spot removal then mono-B and other BX decks.
This is also the justification behind Dovin's Veto. White is the second most reactive color behind Blue, specially when it comes to non-creature effects. Thus WU is allowed to have stronger negate then mono-U even through white does not get 'counter target non-creature spell' or '~~ can't be countered'.
Blue however does not have reach. And red is maybe the least reactive color. Thus I think your cards are out of pie. BRR or RRW '4 damage' is probably doable. For the counter, no one is getting CC 'counter target spell' ever again. But if some color would, I think it would be BU.
Rude Interruption UR
Instant (R)
Counter target spell.
Freezer Burn URR
Instant (U)
~ deals 4 damage to any target.
Your first thoughts about these two cards will probably be close to "Wow, these cards are pretty aggressively costed for their effect," and "But Rude Interruption isn't red and Freezer Burn isn't blue. Why are these gold cards?"
The answer is this: I want to include these exciting, powerful-for-standard effects at low costs, but I only want them to be accessible by certain color combinations. In this case, a Counterspell that can only be played in a deck with both blue and red mana, and a Char without drawback, but with a more restrictive cost, again only accessible to a deck with both red and blue mana.
The purpose of having five different colors of mana at its most fundamental level is just to make sure a single deck can't have easy access to all the best cards across colors. The rule of thumb is that each effect should be accessible to certain colors, but not others, like countermagic in blue and not red. However, there is no rule that states that a counter spell can't have red in its mana cost, even if it doesn't do anything red, as long as it also costs blue mana.
The important part is that I want to impose a tighter-than-normal restriction on deck construction as a way to control which decks can play these powerful effects.
What do you guys think?
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
I agree with your rationale that giving a color access to certain effects is not the most important part of the color pie. Restricting the effect out of other colors is.
This is the justification of why artifacts can do anything. Green decks can play Snare Thopter. But 3G, 3/2 Flying, Haste creature is unprintable. Not because monogreen decks shouldnt play such creature - they can. But because doing so means giving green one extra flying creature over the other 4 colors - and this cant happen.
With that in mind what you are doing is giving UR better burn and counters over the other UX and RX decks. This is strange decision, but borderline justifiable if you want to build variety.
What isnt justifiable is giving UR better burn and counter then mono-R and mono-U. This is total violation of the color pie.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
Hands to the sky
Give a round of applause
For the great Miss Y!
Vannifar - she has no business being blue.
Rakdos firewheeler - this has no black.
Golgari BBGG girl - could have been green honestly.
Gruul RRGG dude - could have been mono green.
Maybe in thjs cases 1 pip of off color is not enough, and it nees to be 2+ pips.
1 pip of mana is very easy to splash for (at least right now) but 2 pips are harder. Also probably on sorcery speeds only.
Polymorph on a stick? Polymorph on a stick! I argue this is a Venn-diagram card where this card not only could have been blue, but even could have been monocolored blue (though increasing the convered mana cost strictly is certainly something green pioneers) or a hybrid card - if they had chosen to supply hybrid legendary creatures.
It has been established for a while that black-red cards sometimes replace "target player loses 2 life" for "deals 2 damage to target player" for aesthetic reasons, but more recently life payment and life loss have been purposely and publicly been replaced with direct damage in black on some cards e. g. Skeleton Archer, so you are arguing from a status quo that is about one year old at least, because Dominaria already used the "direct damage in black over life loss" paradigm in Demonlord Belzenlok.
Once again Golgari Findbroker features an effect each color individually could have - a well-established and generally accepted design pattern.
Sunder Shaman is indeed an example that is not strictly adhering to the rules in their straightest form, but uses an ability with multiple options ("artifact or enchantment") to imply that each card type is associated with one color. Red destroys artifacts, green destroys enchantments. Green can destroy enchantments though, so the symmetry is lost.
---
I don't think any of the examples are remotely comparable with e. g. Rhox War Monk which has been on record as quite despised design.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
Yeah i know black deals noncombat damage more now, but this could have been mono red.
Yeah findbroker (ty i didnt know her name) is green. Black can only return creatures i think (there are a few that recur lands im sure of one though). Any permanent is green.
/thats my reasoning
Anyway OP wanted to talk about stronger than normal cards, using multicolor as the "gating" or "catch". The limit. The GRN/RNA cycle arent exactly pushing boundaries, but they are near examples of what the OP is trying to achieve, power of spell is gated by multicolor. I think ive read a maro article that sometimes they really multicolorize an otherwise monocolored spell to restrict it to certain color combos, evem if the additional color does not fit well.
OP's example Rude Interruption however is very very easy to splash for, and a lot of times actually easier to cast than UU. This is why i think a single pip of extra color is ineffective at this.
Polymorph itself isn't "toolboxy", but the effect is very well within blue's balpark. Add to that that actual non-"toolboxy" uncontrolable variants on the effect like Divergent Transformation are now considered within red's slice of the pie and it seems reasonable to assume that the less chaotic version is a blue effect that just has yet to be printed on a monoblue card.
The point is though: It could also have been monoblack.
Black regularly returns any type of permanent, but noncreature permanents aren't as widespread and appear usually whenever that permanent type becomes a set's theme e. g. black returns land on Zendikar, artifacts on Kaladesh, enchantments on Theros and planeswalkers... well that might be just what we're getting in the big planeswalker set that's coming up.
They do, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's best practice, just that it's practice. And even then you also can find statements by MaRo that qualify this position and add all the other considerations e. g. that its also their tendency to avoid cases like Sunder Shaman if they find an viable execution that communicates the colors better (he didn't talk about that card in particular afaIk, but the sentiment is there).
So, they might add a color to a card to make it more powerful, but they'll always have an additional look at the card afterwards.
The interesting thing about the blue-red counterspell is that there is actual precedence in Double Negative (though from a block that has been criticized for blatantly doing so). One might argue the red allows you to Fork your own counterspell, but the spell certainly doesn't feel particularly red just for allowing a second target. But at the very least this is a true example of "tighter restrictions" on a counterspell since UR routinely is a less tight restriction than UU.
I very strongly agree that a card that tries to create a "multicolored slice of color pie" should also come with certain requirements to how strongly the card is bound to that color pair or at the very least signals the main color strongly. As such I doubt a card with converted mana cost 2 can do this justice.
Overall I lean towards allowing reasonable exceptions, but not making it a general rule - so the card would have to always pass additional scrutiny even before a reprint and just be considered allowed for an environment. Even then I'd rather add "If ~ deals damage to a player, look at that player's hand." to Freezer Burn and rename it appropriately than keep it as it is.
An underreported issue is communicating the concept of the color pie correctly and the proposed spells don't do that anymore.
I've encountered a similar question when comparing twobryd spells with hybrid spells, though that's another can of worms.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
Prime exemple is Terminate, which is better then any mono-B version of 'destroy target creature', despite the effect begin exclusively black. The reason is that since red is also good in spot removal (despite the method being damage and not unconditional destruction), it's justified that BR could get better spot removal then mono-B and other BX decks.
This is also the justification behind Dovin's Veto. White is the second most reactive color behind Blue, specially when it comes to non-creature effects. Thus WU is allowed to have stronger negate then mono-U even through white does not get 'counter target non-creature spell' or '~~ can't be countered'.
Blue however does not have reach. And red is maybe the least reactive color. Thus I think your cards are out of pie. BRR or RRW '4 damage' is probably doable. For the counter, no one is getting CC 'counter target spell' ever again. But if some color would, I think it would be BU.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras