(This month's banner is my own creation, made with Blender and a little math.)
We all knew it was coming, when we started this month. This round is the round of four-colored spells.
Last round necessitated a lot of entries with four-color color identities, because of the way the main challenge interacted with the subchallenge, but the design implications were very different in that round compared to this one. This round specifically requires single-color mana symbols, the difference between the two rounds ends up being similar to the difference between hybrid spells and multicolored spells. The last round encouraged you to bleed mechanics between two two-color combinations. This round requires you to use all four colors.
As an aside, I was surprised we didn't have any entries from last round that just used two non-overlapping hybrid mana in the mana cost, because that would have worked. That won't be possible this round, of course, because the challenge specifically rules it out.
I am fond of making challenges that are worthy of the title "challenge." Four-colored spells are always difficult to design, so I think they're perfect for that role. The subchallenges make things spicy, too, but the main fun will be the challenge. My best advice is to not stress out about it too much, because four-colored spells are very un-explored territory. From a certain point of view, you get to make up the rules. Remember, though, that you don't have to obey all subchallenges. They are optional for a reason.
Without further ado, let's get into the challenges!
Main Challenge -- Design a card that is four colors and which has exactly four different types of single-color mana symbol in its mana cost.
Subchallenge 1 -- The card has more than four single-color mana symbols in its mana cost.
Subchallenge 2 -- The card is a permanent and not a creature.
Main Challenge -- The types of single-color mana symbols are , , , , . Exactly four of these types must be used. A cost can use hybrid mana symbols, provided it doesn't exceed four overall colors. A cost like would work, as would . What matters is that the card is four colors and that it uses four of the five main color symbols.
I would also like to stress that is not a color symbol. It's a colorless symbol.
Subchallenge -- In order to satisfy the first subchallenge, the card must have more than four individual single-color mana symbols. So, something like would not work, but something like would. Hybrid mana would also not count.
Subchallenge -- In order to satisfy the second subchallenge, the card must have a permanent type and not be a creature. In order to satisfy this and to still have a mana cost, it must be at least among the types: planeswalker, enchantment, or artifact. However, there is one exception to this. There are various ways the card could be a planeswalker, enchantment, or artifact and also be an instant, sorcery, or even land. For example, if the card were double-faced with one side being an enchantment and the other side being a land. This leads into the exception: If the card were an instant or sorcery with the appropriate cost, and also a land in some way, it would satisfy this challenge.
Also, if the card has more than one type line, none of the type lines can contain the word "creature."
Design deadline: Monday, January 30th 23:59 -- Eastern Standard Time
Judging deadline: Thursday, February 2nd 23:59 -- Eastern Standard Time
The MCC Rubric is given below, in an easily "copy and pasted" form.
Code: Select all
[b]Design[/b] [b](X/3) Appeal[/b] - Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? [b](X/3) Elegance[/b] - Is the card easily understandable at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense? [b]Development[/b] [b](X/3) Viability[/b] - How well does the card fit into the color wheel? Does it break or bend the rules of the game? Is it the appropriate rarity? [b](X/3) Balance[/b] - Does the card have a power level appropriate for contemporary constructed/limited environments without breaking them? Does it play well in casual and multiplayer formats? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype? Does it create an oppressive environment? [b]Creativity[/b] [b](X/3) Uniqueness[/b] - Has a card like this ever been printed before? Does it use new mechanics, ideas, or design space? Does it combine old ideas in a new way? Overall, does it feel "fresh"? [b](X/3) Flavor[/b] - Does the name seem realistic for a card? Does the flavor text sound professional? Do all the flavor elements synch together to please Vorthos players? [b]Polish[/b] [b](X/3) Quality[/b] - Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating. [b](X/2) Main Challenge (*)[/b] - Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge? [b](X/2) Subchallenges[/b] - One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition. [b]Total: X/25[/b] *An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.