Magic keywords are normally verbs or nouns, which is why I thing Wealthy sounds a bit off.
How about something like Accrue, Endow, Grace ... or simply Wealth
Keyword itself is solid, I like the static ability or death-trigger most. Upkeep and attack triggers seem feel-bad with sorcery speed removal and auras.
If the lands aren't going to stop players from going five color, what will? If you already have some mechanism stopping five color, then why do you think these lands are so difficult. Just make pain lands or filter lands or whatever. It doesn't really matter anymore.
A land shouldn't intrinsically prevent usage of the colors that its mana abilities don't produce. Steam Vents don't reference any anti-white, -black, or -green abilities, and neither does Sandsteppe Citadel and anti-blue and anti-red abilities. Just because a land produces four colors of mana doesn't mean it should automatically reference the fifth color in a negative way, even if there are cards from the faction the land represents that do.
Sphinx of the Steel Wind, for example, is an Esper card from ARB, but no Esper land references red and green negatively.
Why can't a four-colour card hate on the fifth colour? There are a few white cards that do this with black (Angel of Jubilation for example), as well as cards like Abzan Runemark that go the other way. I don't see a flavour or mechanical reason why four-colour lands couldn't do this.
The question I have is - how are the tribes defined? I would have thought the easiest and clearest way to define four-colour tribes was from their missing colour, from both a flavour and mechanics perspective. Three colour is very different in my opinion, and it is much more achievable to base the flavour around the combination of the three colours.
Having amazing mana-fixing and preventing 5-colour through another mechanism would be a reasonable way to go. I don't see how you achieve this without printing cards that directly punish you for the fifth colour, and if you are going to do that, why not do it with the mana-fixing as well?
Trilands provide three two-colour decks and allow drafters to choose from 60% of the cards they see. Quadlands provide six two-colour combinations and allow drafters to choose from 80% of the cards they see. This makes quadlands very different to cards like Sandsteppe Citadel. In Shards and Khans draft formats, 5-colour is a draftable deck. It is well balanced in Khans, but I see it as a lot harder to balance in a four-colour set.
Sidenote 1: For constructed modern and legacy, Vivid Lands and Trilands are not especially popular. Even a straight 5-colour etbt land would probably see no play given how powerful the sac-dual interaction is. In standard playing etbt lands is still not something fast decks would want to do. In saying this, I think finding the most miniscule drawback to a triland is a good idea. Manite's recent offcolour painland does this reasonably well.
Sidenote 2: I like Manite's idea of etbt common dual lands with basic types. In Shards and Khans we have Obelisks/Banners, which aren't especially good cards. Manite, how do you like the idea for a Banner-like cycle with a Fieldmist Borderpost ability?
I was thinking either
4-colour rock3
You may pay 1 and return an Island or Swamp you control to its owner's hand rather than pay ~ mana cost.
~ enters the battlefield tapped. T: Add W, U, B or R to your mana pool.
or
4-colour rock23
You may pay 2 and return a land you control to its owner's hand rather than pay ~ mana cost.
~ enters the battlefield tapped. T: Add W, U, B or R to your mana pool.
Might be acceptable designs, there might be a better variation.
That design is still too close to "strictly better than" trilands. And the restriction is frankly unappealing, not to mention the logic of "it produces green mana, but can't be used to cast green spells"?
So far I feel the duals with two extra colors is the most elegant way of handling quad lands; it's simply a matter of figuring out the best restriction for the extra colors. I do have another template to suggest that uses the payland technology I suggested as replacements for painlands a while back:
Arctic Wastes
Land
~ enters the battlefield tapped. : Add or to your mana pool. , Pay 1 life: Add or to your mana pool.
The tradeoff between these and the paylands is that you get access to colored mana even without paying life in exchange for the land entering tapped. However this does eat up space that could be covered by future trilands, but those could always use some kind of special cost that would enable them to enter untapped, similar to Murmuring Bosk. At the risk of sounding conceited, I'd say this is probably the most elegant take on quad lands so far.
I think this is my favorite design so far for the "duals that are conditional quads" lands, mainly because I agree it is the most elegant. I think it is balanced.
One thing I dislike about the overall idea is that it seems slightly less elegant that a card like the Metropolis posted above (i.e. makes 4 colours and has a single drawback), but I think that card is problematic for other reasons. In saying that, they are fine at uncommon and I think they read and will play reasonably well.
If the flavour of your format is not quad tribes as such, but more 'dual tribes splashing their friends', I would like them a lot more in that context.
What common mana-fixing did you intend on running?
"On the battlefield"? It's great that your opponent can shut down your entire colored mana production by playing a basic land.
Gleng's design doesn't work either, because you lose a color whenever you add another quadland; you'd need to supplement them with duals to get enough consistency.
It just means you can't play the other ones in the cycle. This would be like not being able to play a card named sayEsper Panorama in a Bant deck, which I think is fine. You can still combine two of these and go three color.
Four-colour Land
Land
~ enters the battlefield tapped. T: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool.
You can't cast green spells.
Might stop the otherwise rampant 5-colour decks in a limited format with this theme.
I actually really like this design. It's increadibly brute force, but it does make a quad set feel like a quad set, rather than have everyone end up playing 5-color. I would change it to "T: Add W, U, B or R to your mana pool" though, for aesthetic reasons.
(Actually, I'm still not convinced a quad set is going to work, but if you're going to do it, this is something I'd look into.)
I agree it could be a bit brute force and like the aesthetic change. The drawback could be weakened to something like "when you cast a green spell, sacrifice ~".
Another idea:
Land
When ~ enters the battlefield it doesn't untap during your next untap step.
When ~ enters the battlefield, sacrifice it unless you pay 1.
T: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool. You may not spend this mana on green spells.
It reads a bit awkwardly, but this is like Rupture Spire with drawback on not making green and bonus of getting to play turn one, or using it like a Shimmering Grotto the turn that you play it.
Discussion on Four- Colour in General
Too make four colour work in limited, I really think you need 2-3 cycles of powerful commons and uncommons that will directly punish players for playing the 5th colour.
Something like
Example card3(G/W)
Enchantment (U)
Nonblack creatures you control get +1/+1
Black creatures you control get -1/-1
Example card 21(G/W)
Creature (C)
Whenever you cast a black spell, sacrifice ~.
3/1
I would like to see this as a generic ability (consider Intimidate for example).
e.g. something like:
Intolerant (This creature costs 1 less to cast for each color not shared by this among permanents your opponents control and 1 more to cast for each color not shared by this among permanents you control)
For example, a 2R card costs R if you only control R permanents and an opponent has both W and B permanents.
Flavour wise, as your creature get's a bonus against their creature, would it be better for the wording to instead be: "...this creature is the paired creature's nemesis."?
Oppressed - 2 (This creature enters the battlefield with two -1/-1 counters on it. At the beginning of your upkeep, remove a -1/-1 counter from this creature)
This mechanic would fit naturally on permanents with lower converted mana costs.
Example 1W
Oppressed 3 (This creature enters the battlefield with three -1/-1 counters on it. At the beginning of your upkeep, remove a -1/-1 counter from this creature)
3/5
Example 2 2W
Oppressed 2 (This creature enters the battlefield with two -1/-1 counters on it. At the beginning of your upkeep, remove a -1/-1 counter from this creature)
Whenever a -1/-1 counter is removed from ~, put a 1/1 white citizen creature token onto the battlefield.
2/3
Edit: Ghostly Flicker could also be an infinite mana win condition.
These cards are not awful on their own and you are already playing some of them.
There is a lot of redundancy with this concept in Pauper Momir Vig with land enchantments, creatures that untap lands, other repeatable untaps (Galvanic Alchemist/Crab Umbra), Orochi Leafcaller, creatures that tap for 2 or more mana (e.g. Axebane Guardian), etc.
If you want to abuse your the most, you would need a fast deck with a lot of cheap spells. Something that doesn't want to play Sol Ring. Something that goes Mana elf -> Phyrexian Arena, or Preordain -> Suspend Greater Gargadon -> Temur Ascendancy
Honestly, I would split it into two decks - 9 fetches + 6 duals + 3 scrys for the perfect 3 Colour deck, 4 duals + 7 fetches for the perfect two colour deck (assuming you can abuse things like Sensei's Divining Top etc.
Fight Club 1R
Sorcery
Target creature fights itself.
I like the white one quite a bit. The black one feels either red or green to me, and the blue one feels green.
How about something like Accrue, Endow, Grace ... or simply Wealth
Keyword itself is solid, I like the static ability or death-trigger most. Upkeep and attack triggers seem feel-bad with sorcery speed removal and auras.
Why can't a four-colour card hate on the fifth colour? There are a few white cards that do this with black (Angel of Jubilation for example), as well as cards like Abzan Runemark that go the other way. I don't see a flavour or mechanical reason why four-colour lands couldn't do this.
The question I have is - how are the tribes defined? I would have thought the easiest and clearest way to define four-colour tribes was from their missing colour, from both a flavour and mechanics perspective. Three colour is very different in my opinion, and it is much more achievable to base the flavour around the combination of the three colours.
Having amazing mana-fixing and preventing 5-colour through another mechanism would be a reasonable way to go. I don't see how you achieve this without printing cards that directly punish you for the fifth colour, and if you are going to do that, why not do it with the mana-fixing as well?
Trilands provide three two-colour decks and allow drafters to choose from 60% of the cards they see. Quadlands provide six two-colour combinations and allow drafters to choose from 80% of the cards they see. This makes quadlands very different to cards like Sandsteppe Citadel. In Shards and Khans draft formats, 5-colour is a draftable deck. It is well balanced in Khans, but I see it as a lot harder to balance in a four-colour set.
Sidenote 1: For constructed modern and legacy, Vivid Lands and Trilands are not especially popular. Even a straight 5-colour etbt land would probably see no play given how powerful the sac-dual interaction is. In standard playing etbt lands is still not something fast decks would want to do. In saying this, I think finding the most miniscule drawback to a triland is a good idea. Manite's recent offcolour painland does this reasonably well.
Sidenote 2: I like Manite's idea of etbt common dual lands with basic types. In Shards and Khans we have Obelisks/Banners, which aren't especially good cards. Manite, how do you like the idea for a Banner-like cycle with a Fieldmist Borderpost ability?
I was thinking either
4-colour rock 3
You may pay 1 and return an Island or Swamp you control to its owner's hand rather than pay ~ mana cost.
~ enters the battlefield tapped.
T: Add W, U, B or R to your mana pool.
or
4-colour rock2 3
You may pay 2 and return a land you control to its owner's hand rather than pay ~ mana cost.
~ enters the battlefield tapped.
T: Add W, U, B or R to your mana pool.
Might be acceptable designs, there might be a better variation.
I think this is my favorite design so far for the "duals that are conditional quads" lands, mainly because I agree it is the most elegant. I think it is balanced.
One thing I dislike about the overall idea is that it seems slightly less elegant that a card like the Metropolis posted above (i.e. makes 4 colours and has a single drawback), but I think that card is problematic for other reasons. In saying that, they are fine at uncommon and I think they read and will play reasonably well.
If the flavour of your format is not quad tribes as such, but more 'dual tribes splashing their friends', I would like them a lot more in that context.
What common mana-fixing did you intend on running?
It just means you can't play the other ones in the cycle. This would be like not being able to play a card named sayEsper Panorama in a Bant deck, which I think is fine. You can still combine two of these and go three color.
I agree it could be a bit brute force and like the aesthetic change. The drawback could be weakened to something like "when you cast a green spell, sacrifice ~".
Another idea:
Land
When ~ enters the battlefield it doesn't untap during your next untap step.
When ~ enters the battlefield, sacrifice it unless you pay 1.
T: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool. You may not spend this mana on green spells.
It reads a bit awkwardly, but this is like Rupture Spire with drawback on not making green and bonus of getting to play turn one, or using it like a Shimmering Grotto the turn that you play it.
Discussion on Four- Colour in General
Too make four colour work in limited, I really think you need 2-3 cycles of powerful commons and uncommons that will directly punish players for playing the 5th colour.
Something like
Example card 3(G/W)
Enchantment (U)
Nonblack creatures you control get +1/+1
Black creatures you control get -1/-1
Example card 2 1(G/W)
Creature (C)
Whenever you cast a black spell, sacrifice ~.
3/1
Look forward to seeing what you come up with.
Brainstorming:
ETB lose 1 life
On a WUBR land: You can't play forests or cast green spells.
etc.
Actually - running with the last idea:
Four-colour Land
Land
~ enters the battlefield tapped.
T: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool.
You can't cast green spells.
Might stop the otherwise rampant 5-colour decks in a limited format with this theme.
e.g. something like:
Intolerant (This creature costs 1 less to cast for each color not shared by this among permanents your opponents control and 1 more to cast for each color not shared by this among permanents you control)
For example, a 2R card costs R if you only control R permanents and an opponent has both W and B permanents.
This mechanic reminds me of Kulrath Knight
Oppressed - 2 (This creature enters the battlefield with two -1/-1 counters on it. At the beginning of your upkeep, remove a -1/-1 counter from this creature)
This mechanic would fit naturally on permanents with lower converted mana costs.
Example
1W
Oppressed 3 (This creature enters the battlefield with three -1/-1 counters on it. At the beginning of your upkeep, remove a -1/-1 counter from this creature)
3/5
Example 2
2W
Oppressed 2 (This creature enters the battlefield with two -1/-1 counters on it. At the beginning of your upkeep, remove a -1/-1 counter from this creature)
Whenever a -1/-1 counter is removed from ~, put a 1/1 white citizen creature token onto the battlefield.
2/3
Psychotic Fury Double Cleave Boros Charm Armed and Dangerous
Berserk costs one mana and is an instant, which makes it infinitely better in the deck it is played in (infect).
G
Defender, Reach
1/1
0/1s don't feel like real creatures
Otherwise, I like the 0/2 suggestion.
Morph
Ninjutsu
Forecast
Channel
Man-lands
"Put onto the battlefield":(Preeminent Captain etc.)
Tidewater Minion + Freed from the Real + Dimir Aqueduct/Azorius Chancery/High Tide + Drain Life/Capsize/Overrule/Train of Thought?
Edit: Ghostly Flicker could also be an infinite mana win condition.
These cards are not awful on their own and you are already playing some of them.
There is a lot of redundancy with this concept in Pauper Momir Vig with land enchantments, creatures that untap lands, other repeatable untaps (Galvanic Alchemist/Crab Umbra), Orochi Leafcaller, creatures that tap for 2 or more mana (e.g. Axebane Guardian), etc.
Honestly, I would split it into two decks - 9 fetches + 6 duals + 3 scrys for the perfect 3 Colour deck, 4 duals + 7 fetches for the perfect two colour deck (assuming you can abuse things like Sensei's Divining Top etc.
Put a -1/-1 counter on this: This gains your choice of <keyword1, keyword2, keyword3> (This effect lasts indefinitely)
Or just a slightly differenter Jodah's Avenger in white.