Covalent Colors.

[Superman]

Can somone help me out with the wording?

Covalent Colors
WWW
Enchantment

Mana costs of nonartifact spells may only be paid with mana of that spell's colors.



I didnt add the part where artifacts had to be paid with colorless mana because that is a little too powerful.

[Jacob Orlove]

How about "All colorless mana in a spell's mana cost must be paid with mana of that spell's color or colors."

BGR is an awful casting cost, though, especially since this only hoses multicolor decks.

[brianb]

Yeah, the effect feels like it should be in blue along with Back to Basics and those awful spells way back when that rearranged all of the colors of everything.  How would this affect artifacts?

[Machinus]

Yeah, the effect feels like it should be in blue along with Back to Basics and those awful spells way back when that rearranged all of the colors of everything.  How would this affect artifacts?

If there could be some kind of interaction with cards like workshop and vedalken engineer (a hosing interaction) that would be cool.

[Jacob Orlove]

By "feels like it should be in blue" you obviously mean "this is a good card that does weird things, so we should default to blue like wizards used to", and you're no longer correct. As a rules-creating card, this is very clearly white, and provides a nice counterpoint to my Chromatic Web.

For reference, from the master list:
Chromatic Web
WW
Enchantment
Each spell with exactly one colored mana in its mana cost costs an additional mana of that color.
Strands of thinnest gossamer, glinting and glimmering as they hold back energies beyond the mortal ken.

I'd say WW is probably fine for a cost on this, too.

[Nibble]

If there could be some kind of interaction with cards like workshop and vedalken engineer (a hosing interaction) that would be cool.

You mean something along the lines of:

Mana costs of nonartifact spells may only be paid with mana of that spell's colors.
Mana costs of artifact spells may only be paid with colorless mana.


Also, I could've sworn someone had this idea fairly recently.. does anyone remember what I'm talking about, or remember the card itself?

Edit: Aha! http://www.themanadrain.com/forums/index.php?topic=21572.0
Though that card died before it came to fruition, it might be a good reference.

[asmoranomardicodais]

Superman, make sure your not overwriting the old card whenever you change the card with suggestions.

[Nova442]

I think we should beware making any unique effect white under the new "white is the color of rule changes".  I too thought this was blue not for the reason that this is different, which it is, but because to me green is the color or making mana easier (fixing) and blue, natural enemy of green, is the color messing with mana.  Think of all the cards that are blue which change lands and colors to others.  A lot of those cards make paying colored mana requirements harder, which this does as well.

I think a good case could be made for EITHER white or blue, but you can't throw it out or rule it in with one word, even if its from a respected member like Jacob Orlove.  At least consider things carefully

[Jacob Orlove]

Yeah, but this isn't just a rule-making card, it's also close to white's "taxation" mechanic, requiring that players spend, not more mana, but specific mana to cast certain spells. That's very white.

[Ephraim]

 

As much as I dislike cards that encourage monochrome decks, they seem to be popular suggestions. This one is as well done as the theme may be done, so I'll give this a halfhearted Ephraim seal of approval. I'd say that WWW is probably an excessive mana cost, but this is probably only going to go into a mono-white deck anyhow. I wouldn't mind seeing it cheaper, though, since then it would encourage splashing by brave Johnnies.

This card's name is probably going to have to change. I don't have any suggestions at the moment, but I'll see what I can come up with.