To answer your first question, yes, you can have multiple auras on the same permanent, as long as none of the auras are giving the permanent an ability that makes the permanent an illegal target (for example, shroud or protection).
for your 2nd question, the answer is that the land will have “T: Add two mana of any one color.” in addition to it's other abilities. Then Market Festival's effect will cause the land to produce 2 additional mana of any color combination in addition to whatever mana it produces. In other words, just based on the effects of these auras, the land could produce a total of 4 mana, 2 of one color, and 2 of any combination of colors.
There's also the (I guess relatively minor) issue of blinking (effects that exile and put the card back onto the battlefield). As-is, if the spell gets blinked after you cast it as an enchantment, it'll remain in exile because it's a non-permanent card. but if it's an enchantment that can be channeled, or like Rowans design, blinking it will function just fine.
This isn't a huge deal, but I think it's a rule that comes up rarely, and I think WotC wants to avoid this kind of situation because it's an obscure rule that newer players might not expect.
That said, I like this design. This seems like it could be a cycle.
I really like the concept of Awkward Gathering. It feels fair in cost and effect. I think the wording for it would just be "Starting with you, each player..." if it was a real card. Also, it should be made clear that only the players who searched their libraries need to shuffle, I think technically the way it's worded, only the person who controls the spell would shuffle?
For Throne of Perpetuity, I'm pretty sure Staying Power is an Un card for a reason, because I'm pretty sure this cannot be done as written in the rules. Even if it didn't have rules issues, it's also just a huge memory nightmare. Very much seems like a "fun in theory, horrible in practice" kind of idea to me.
School of Hard Knocks is fine. I think it'd be more interesting/exciting if you upped the cost (maybe to 1WW) of the ability and made it say "put a +1/+1 counter on each creature you control that was dealt damage this turn." That's just a suggestion though, its not bad as-is.
That's a good question. I could only think of two possible explanations, but neither of them seem like great reasons:
A. They wanted to make it easier for newer players.
B. They wanted it to reference/distinguish itself from the original Braids, Cabal Minion.
If they're planning or wanted to leave possibilities for adding new types of permanents, I guess that makes sense, but would make me wonder why they aren't that careful with a bunch of other cards.
If it said "and/or" instead of just "or", that would explain it, but that's not the case either.
Assuming you're right, I wonder if this would mean we'll see a shift in the color identities of the tribes. Like maybe the dinos become GW, the pirates become UR, so the underworld creatures (Zombies? Horrors? ...Phyrexians?) are BR or something.
Makin it: UR Pirates WG Dinos BR Underworld creatures WB Vampires UG Merfolk
This is a great question, and I'm not sure either but would like to know.
However, if I would wager a guess, since the player chooses two creatures and then sacrifices the rest, I think they could choose not to choose the creatures gifted to them by Jon Irenicus, and then when they go to sacrifice them, they just can't, allowing them to keep more than 2 creatures.
My reasoning here is that the Archfiend allows the player to make a choice, and in that choice the player's ability to sacrifice a creature is not considered. There's nothing there to force a player to choose creatures that can't be sacrificed first. So they can choose whatever, and if the gifted creature isn't chosen, the player goes to sacrifice it, but can't, so they stay.
I'd like to see what people who have a better grasp of the rules would say about this though.
When I first saw this I thought it was pretty meh, but just realized it might be pretty decent in token decks. You could sacrifice eldrazi drones, for example, to tutor and cast mono-colored creatures from your deck, or use mono-colored token creatures to get 2-colored creatures. The fact that you have to cast the creature you tutor means it'll never be as good as cards like Birthing Pod but still.
This reminds me of one of my favorite jank cards Eye of the Storm. This is slower, but might be more practical, especially since your opponents cant take advantage of it.
He was greatest, most brilliant artificer of the Thran, the genius of his time.
With Rebbec, he shut Yawgmoth and Phyrexia out of Dominaria for 9,000 years.
His soul dwells in the Mightstone and Weakstone that became Urza's eyes.
It's implied that Urza's Planeswalker's spark might actually be Glacian's.
And this is his card?
I'm absolutely with you, but to play devil's advocate, the fact that this is a creature card and not a planeswalker card implies this is before his spark ignited (duh), so maybe that's why it's not that powerful? But I'm also not 100% familiar with the story so...
for your 2nd question, the answer is that the land will have “T: Add two mana of any one color.” in addition to it's other abilities. Then Market Festival's effect will cause the land to produce 2 additional mana of any color combination in addition to whatever mana it produces. In other words, just based on the effects of these auras, the land could produce a total of 4 mana, 2 of one color, and 2 of any combination of colors.
This isn't a huge deal, but I think it's a rule that comes up rarely, and I think WotC wants to avoid this kind of situation because it's an obscure rule that newer players might not expect.
That said, I like this design. This seems like it could be a cycle.
For Throne of Perpetuity, I'm pretty sure Staying Power is an Un card for a reason, because I'm pretty sure this cannot be done as written in the rules. Even if it didn't have rules issues, it's also just a huge memory nightmare. Very much seems like a "fun in theory, horrible in practice" kind of idea to me.
School of Hard Knocks is fine. I think it'd be more interesting/exciting if you upped the cost (maybe to 1WW) of the ability and made it say "put a +1/+1 counter on each creature you control that was dealt damage this turn." That's just a suggestion though, its not bad as-is.
It's pretty good, but it really doesn't feel like a rare.
literally my two favorite characters from Strixhaven. And it seems strong. Good for a landfall deck
A. They wanted to make it easier for newer players.
B. They wanted it to reference/distinguish itself from the original Braids, Cabal Minion.
If they're planning or wanted to leave possibilities for adding new types of permanents, I guess that makes sense, but would make me wonder why they aren't that careful with a bunch of other cards.
If it said "and/or" instead of just "or", that would explain it, but that's not the case either.
Makin it:
UR Pirates
WG Dinos
BR Underworld creatures
WB Vampires
UG Merfolk
However, if I would wager a guess, since the player chooses two creatures and then sacrifices the rest, I think they could choose not to choose the creatures gifted to them by Jon Irenicus, and then when they go to sacrifice them, they just can't, allowing them to keep more than 2 creatures.
My reasoning here is that the Archfiend allows the player to make a choice, and in that choice the player's ability to sacrifice a creature is not considered. There's nothing there to force a player to choose creatures that can't be sacrificed first. So they can choose whatever, and if the gifted creature isn't chosen, the player goes to sacrifice it, but can't, so they stay.
I'd like to see what people who have a better grasp of the rules would say about this though.
Edit: well technically not infinite, but as much as you like
I'm absolutely with you, but to play devil's advocate, the fact that this is a creature card and not a planeswalker card implies this is before his spark ignited (duh), so maybe that's why it's not that powerful? But I'm also not 100% familiar with the story so...