Recently I saw a meme about drugs being something that could be color coded, I'm not going to say which drugs are which colors, but it got me thinking about rave festivals.
From my perspective rave festivals are Temur colored. What are your guys' thoughts on why this might be true as opposed to why this might not be true. Also RGB.
So, recently in this sub, I posted something about alternative color wheels, but then when we learned about how jace is fracturing the realities, it made me think.
"Are there beings that are higher than planeswalkers?"
which in my thinking, I concluded, yes, there are beings even higher than planeswalkers, which could in fact be reality walkers.
but within this concept, we find something else. if jace is capable of creating new multiverses, along with new realities, does that mean that there are possibilities of new colors of mana being printed for new realities that we never even knew about?
like per se a reality in the magic multi-reality where instead of mana coming from lands, they come from skies like what I had posited in my other post? my yellow, cyan, purple, orange, pink idea feels a little bit more possible in this case.
What are your thoughts on what could, or possibly might not happen. Please do not comment on my ideas of a potential alternative color wheel, that's just me taking it to the extreme. I just want to know what your thoughts are on what could be possible with these realities being revealed to the multiverses.
What are your favorite ideas for alternative colors for magic the gathering?
my personal alternative color wheel was yellow, cyan, purple, orange, pink. placed in the same order as wubrg.
I know that a lot of people have discussed this before, but for someone like me, I always am thinking about other ways that magic might have developed as far as other universes. to be perfectly honest, magic doesn't really have anything that would limit it from actually creating another color wheel for another line of cards that can't be played with the original wheel of mana, but that would also mess with what can be played vs not played. idk it's very complicated.
at the same time, however, the idea that a color wheel in a different setting was always something that I would have liked to talk about. I know that the people that I have talked to about it thought it would be neat, but they never really gave me much more of a perspective of, "oh that would be cool," or, "eh, it's fine as it is," type of a deal. I just enjoy the creativity of imagining something beyond what is the base and exploring even further.
I've been trying to solve a bit of some of the issues with huge turn 1 win cons that feel like they've begun tearing magic into a scene where the only way to win is to either have a huge turn 1 hand, or you have tutors that pull your cards out.
the other side of it was a little bit of me wanting to be able to play planeswalkers more because they never really see the light of day in my commander decks.
so when I found oathbreaker as a format, I thought it would be fun to try it out some, but I also saw that the format gets broken fast. part of me thought that it's not a big deal, but at the same time, signature spells to appear to be something of a nuisance in the format in some ways. not saying it's a bad thing, it's just not exactly what I'm looking for in a format.
So, let's start with my commander idea that I had been brewing. Something that I was starting to feel a little let down by was that I was wanting my commander's ability all the time while I was playing, and then I started thinking that it would be great to have a commander whose ability was always passively on. for me, that didn't really work well because it felt like it was betraying the entire core philosophy of what commander as a format does, with you needing to cast the commander in order to get the core part of the build.
Then I realized that oathbreaker had its signature spell portion of the format, which got me thinking. What if players had an enchantment that was always passively on? almost like a passive that was part of a player's deck's identity? It wasn't just that, but sometimes I wanted to play vanguard as a format, but I'm not particularly fond of spending money in order to get everything that would be needed to play the format. However, having a passive enchantment made me think that I was starting to get somewhere with what I thought would be a great idea of making decks.
So, what kind of enchantments do we have?
aura, cartouche, curse, role, rune, background, case, class, room, saga, and shrine.
allowed passive enchantments: background, class, and normal enchantments.
not allowed enchantments: aura, cartouche, curse, role, rune, case, room, saga, and shrine.
I feel like the rules would explain why these enchantments wouldn't be allowed inside of a "passive," enchantment zone, but for the most part, the main reason is because the enchantments either target single players, or they target single creatures. The passive isn't supposed to be something that attaches itself to something, or be used in a way that forces that to happen.
For ETB mechanics, passive enchantments enter the battle on turn 1. They are essentially in a zone that cannot be interacted with. They cannot be removed, and they are always active. If the card itself removes itself from the passive zone, it causes the ETB to trigger again. However, a player cannot interact with their own enchantments through triggers such as, "Sacrifice this enchantment,"
in example, an enchantment like "Corroding Dragonstorm," has the rules: "When this enchantment enters, each opponent loses 2 life, and you gain 2 life, surveil 2. When a Dragon you control enters, return this enchantment to its owner's hand." This means, in this format, whenever you put a dragon onto the battlefield, instead of your enchantment returning to your hand, it instead flickers back into the passive zone triggering its ETB mechanic.
on the other side, an enchantment like "midnight snack," has the rules: "At the beginning of your end step, if you attacked this turn, create a food token. 2{B}, sacrifice this enchantment: target opponent loses X life, where X is the amount of life you gained this turn." A player would not be able to sacrifice this enchantment because it requires interaction in order to perform the task.
However, if there was ever an enchantment that said, "whenever," or "when," and triggers a "sacrifice this enchantment," it would flicker the enchantment in the passive zone, triggering any ETB the enchantment might have.
So, now that I'm (Kinda) done explaining the mechanic of the passive, the core idea, is that the passive you choose is basically your own passive ability as a caster of the magic cards. however, as the caster, you also now have your own signature spell like in oathbreaker, an oathbreaker that is contracted to you, and a commander as your avatar.
The Idea that I basically came up with in order to make this entire idea not entirely game breaking is that everything between your passive, your signature spell, your oathbreaker, and your commander MUST have EXACTLY MATCHING color identities. This means that if you have a white, blue, black commander: the other cards (passive, signature spell, and oathbreaker) MUST have EXACTLY white, AND blue, AND black in their identity, and they CANNOT have more colors in their identity, and they CANNOT have less colors in their identity.
This therefore means that:
Partner commanders: illegal
Oathbreaker rules apply for casting your signature spell still.
The last idea that I had in order to not have entire game breaking madness from constantly having 4 cards you will always have access to is that the last bit of the deck is singleton commons. no uncommons. no rares. no mythic rares. so you have 4 identity defining spells, but nothing that is game changing inside of the rest of the deck. These commons have to have color identity within the deck's identity, and cannot have color identity outside of the deck's identity.
for deck building, I was thinking that decks with 80 cards, 76 + 4, would be an easy starting point for testing this idea out. currently, I'm hoping for feedback on whether or not this type of deck building would be "too niche," of an experiment, or if other people would be interested in trying this out to help me narrow this entire concept down. for one thing, I don't know how much health each player should have, I was thinking 30, but that might be too low, but if you go higher, the games might last longer than what is desirable in a format. one thing is for sure from my perspective, I don't think that the people I play with would really try this out unless I really really really really pushed hard for them to help me try it out.
Natsuki subaru.
Natsuki subaru's ambition, greed, sacrifice to return by death, and his entire selfish character makes him almost entirely a mono black character.
This is just surface level analysis, however if there's more that others might want to add, that would be great.
Edit: this post is about natsuki subaru. Sorry for any confusion about that.
Sorry i made this post super fast. I was just thinking about what types of characters are characters that should be considered mono colored. For me i'm thinking:
Heroes
W: samwise gamgee
U: spock
B: catwoman
R: johnny storm/human torch
G: swamp thing
Villains
W: judge claude frollo - the hunchback of notre dame
U: Hal 9000 - space odessy
B: voldemort
R: carnage symbiote
G: poison ivy - DCU (just in case people thought i was talking about the plant)
edit: I know that some of these examples might not be considered by others to be mono-colored, that's not really the point. the main point is to get people talking about what characters they think are mono-colored. at the same time, I do appreciate the arguments against my picks. make sure to keep the discourse going.
the last on my shard color wheel posts. maybe someone who wants to post about the wedges might be willing to do so.
anyway, with this concluding my visit to this subreddit about the 3 color heroes and villains arc, which heroes and villains might you be willing to look at as being colored jund?
for me, I was thinking that Guts from Berzerk might be a really good jund hero.
jund heroes are characters that protect their packs with savage intensity. they do not care about how they look in others eyes. they will raid for the pack to survive. they will kill so the pack can survive. They believe that growing stronger through conflict is what will make them be the sole survivors.
jund villains are typically conquerors. They also tend to have a superiority complex due to them believing that because they went through bad situations, others should be able to pick themselves up and become the predators like they did.
So we've already gone through 3 of the 3 color shards, and here's the fourth one.
naya is green white red.
naya is usually seen as protectors of life. they are emotionally sincere. They believe in community. naya are often seen as warriors, along with being tribal in nature. tribes don't just mean familial ties, it could be your own cohort of friends.
Where naya starts to get ugly is that naya can start looking at outsiders as potential threats to their way of life. mostly through a zealous xenophobic lens. so, there can be villains that start to view purging the threats as viable answers to the problems at hand.
So, after a little bit of a fiasco, we're going to be diving into the next colors. I really enjoyed seeing the discussions in the last one. a lot of really good points were made.
anyway, for bant I'm thinking that we're trying to set this up with green white blue which is probably not to difficult to think of which heroes are going to be bant, but there might be difficulties in trying to figure out which villains are colored bant.
so, for heroes, we'd probably be thinking of people that care about wisdom, discipline, compassion, and respect for life.
for villains, we'd probably look for people whose core beliefs are that they know what's best for the world, and they're willing to force the world into harmony.
bant's virtue: stewardship
bant's flaw: paternalism
I'm not going to declare any winners or losers from my last post. It looked like there was a healthy discussion on the last one.
Personally for me, i'm feeling batman as a true esper hero. Cold and calculating for blue, pragmatic and ambitious for black, protection and justice for white.
You all are entitled to your thoughts on this matter. I love reading new inspiring takes on color combinations.
Edit: dang i wish i could change the title on this one.
Edit: also, I know that I proposed batman on this one. feel free to call me out on it, but also feel free to not get bogged down by a single potential hero I named. I feel it now that people might see that, and then feel like the problem is solved, but I would prefer it if you didn't think that the problem was entirely solved, and come up with your own solutions too. Sorry if that's a weird thing to bring up, but I'm wanting to hear more of what you guys have to say about esper heroes and villains.