Now I'm curious about the higher tier planeswalkers and beings remaining that haven't been mentioned in awhile.
Will Nahiri accidentally open Zendikar back up to Eldrazi?
Ugin is presumably fully occupied in the Mediation Realm./?
Sorin and Arlinn are attempting to protect Innistrad, but we don't know what that entails. Is releasing Emrakul a potential break-glass-in-case-of-emergency?
Ob Nixilis - I fully expect him to side with the Phyrexians, unless he sees them going after Halo as a threat to his goals.
What's Garruk up to? On second thought, he would seem particulary easy to compleat.
And Tezzeret - seems like the Phyrexians will kill/compleat him if they capture him back. But will he lay low or help the good guys in some way?
It seems to be telegraphed that Teferi, Elspeth, Chandra (will Ghostfire be of use?), and the Wanderer (at least getting Teferi unstuck) will play key roles in the next resistance. Clearly Halo/Elspeth are a major threat to Elesh, and of course anything time-based can undo the Phyrexians' goals.
Melira could be of better use if she gets her powers ramped up a lot, otherwise it just seems too slow at the moment.
Sarkhan is presumably never born in the DTK timeline, which neatly avoids the "two Sarkhans" problem.
Except that would create the traditional time travel paradox of not being able to affect the past in a way that eliminates one's presence/existence, because if that happens, then one wouldn't have been able to travel back to affect time, repeat, etc.
So Sarkhan has to exist. The previous iteration of him had to have gone to the past, but in a way the doesn't jeopardize his existence (think Back to the Future 1). The only way to ~neatly~ solve that is to make it such that he always has a reason to travel back - and when he comes back, he takes his own place.
Given that he's destined to travel back, the only detail to muck around with or keep consistent is *why*. As far as we know, the only consistent reason is 'Save the Ugin, save the world.' Which could mean that DTK *starts* with dragons in charge, but doesn't necessarily finish that way. I'm not sure if they've specifically dated DTK (it's just advertised as alternate timeline, yes?) - If it's a DTK that occurs/starts before Sarkhan is born, then things still have a chance to unfold in a way that creates a consistent movtive for Sarkhan. The problem I see with keeping dragons in charge through the conclusion of DTK and rise of Sarkhan, is that it would create a Sarkhand that doesn't have a reason to bail, which prevents the events that lead to that point - ergo, paradox.
Not sure if anyone has posted this already, but I think I found an out for this all to work.
Tarkir 1.0
Original Ugin v. Bolas (and Yasova) result - Dragon apocalypse (thanks Yasova!) & Ugin dead.
Sarkhan grows up in no-Dragon Tarkir (1.0), which causes him to seek out Nicol Bolas. (Let's mark this point as Bon Voyage)
Tarkir 1.1
Alternate Ugin v. Bolas (and Yasova) result - Dragons survive (thanks Sarkhan!) & Ugin healing away in hedron cocoon (unbeknownst to Bolas)
Clans continue to fight vs Dragons.
Here's the out - what if, the clans eventually wipe out most/all of the dragons (just much later than original), thus preserving the motivation for Sarkhan 1.1 to seek out Bolas? (Save the dragons! Bon Voyage!)
Timeline then drops Sarkhan 1.0 into Tarkir after Sarkhan 1.1 leaves (thus avoiding the 2 Sarkhans in one place paradox), except now he knows where to go find Ugin, and Ugin isn't dead. Him and/or Sorin then can revive Ugin and they go try again to fix the Eldrazi problem.
TL;DR - Sarkhan was always destined to seek out Nicol Bolas. So however the story unfolds, that motivation (i.e. dragons dying) needs to be preserved. It doesn't really matter that much if that event (dragons dying) occurs l000 yrs in the past (with Yasova's assist), or in the recent past (clans eventually gain the upper hand), as long as it happens.
I'm going to go with the accepted version of inoculation - temporarily weakening something to make it stronger in the long run.
The specimen was euthanized (died) before the contagion could spread (goal).
So my interpretation was that they *want* the contagion to spread, but they couldn't get the host/carrier to stay alive long enough for that to happen.
Based on that, I would guess the creature gets 1 or more -1/-1 counters and infect (since they want it to have the ability to infect other creatures). Those -1/-1 counters kill it before it does too much damage.
Counters + infect straight up isn't very 'blue'
So here's a thought -
Target creature gains infect. Each time target creature becomes tapped, put a -1/-1 counter on it. Tap target creature.
It fits in blue's 'defensive' 'tapping' abilities as well as punishing creatures for attacking (Also blue).
Based on these criteria
Has basic land types
Strictly inferior to original duals
Minimal overt risk (e.g life loss)
Minimal overt gain to opponent
No memory issues (i.e. having to remember what it is)
Land - Forest Mountain
CIPT, unless you return a land to your hand.
The drawback is a stunted mana development (which may be benign to newer players), yet it also provides a slightly challenging decision of 'how badly do i need the mana this turn?'
The things that troubles me the most is the "protection from something never granted before"...
Which cuts off instants, all colours, artifacts and a lot of other stuff....
Maybe it's just something like CMC X, but how about "Protection from opponents" or "from [stuff] you don't control"?:D
Here's my oddball prediction that extended from the 2 poison hits in the Orb.
Target player gains protection from poison and/or counters.
As far as I can tell, this satisfies the "something never granted before" as well as the "not to a permanent".
Although, I don't see why this protection can't/wouldn't be extended to creatures. It would seem to make sense in a counter-heavy block to have a card that can cause them to fall off.
Poison - 2 hits, as has been noted.
So I would assume it's on an uncommon and/or rare card.
What if, R&D tacked on an extension to poison in one of the following ways.
Target player/opponent gets a poison counter and loses two life (thus establishing a link between poison and life lost)
or
Remove a poison counter from a player : That player loses two life. Any player can play this ability. (Again, establishing the link between a poison counter and life).
And from that, the idea came to me (and someone has probably thought of this) -
"A card that gives protection from something never granted before—and not to a permanent" .... Target player gains protection from poison and/or counters? (however that would be templated).
Not a permanent
Spells on the stack
Graveyard
Library
Players
Protection from counters would be completely new, and yet fitting in the theme of Lowryn block + Shadowmoor. After all, since Lorwyn + Morningtide were so eager to grant +1/+1 counters, it only seems logical that Shadowmoor would remove/take them away, neutralize them (with -1/-1 counters), or prevent them from getting put on in the first place -> protection from counters.
Tear down defenses and leave permanent scars in your foe’s life total.
"Permanent" scars? As in something that puts a cap on your opponent's life total? How would this be represented? Something that caps the life total as long as it's in play or in your graveyard (otherwise, how would you keep track?)?
Added - 1 hit for "total", 0 for "can't"/"cannot", 36 for "life", 0 for "maximum".
Countryside Crusher
Pro - gets beefy quick
Con - can you draw another land from your deck through your regular draw? Other than what's in your hand already, i think this locks out drawing lands. And if there's some way to pacify it ...
In theory, they could just change it into a manland a la Dryad Arbor.
Denying Channelkeeper
(+Legendary?) Land Creature - Island Wizard
1/1 (Denying Channelkeeper isn't a spell, it's affected by summoning sickness, and it has "T: Add 1 to your mana pool.")
The name is too long, but other than that, is it not overpowered as a manland (summoning sickness is a drawback)? Should it be Legendary? Would it be "Legendary" or "Legend"?
If it would need nerfing and a Legendary clause isn't enough, I would playtest a FoW-like channel cost instead - 3UU, -1 life, remove a blue card ... but that starts to get too wordy.
Arcbound Aven 5
Artifact Creature - Bird Construct
Delve (You may remove any number of cards in your graveyard from the game as you play this spell. It costs less to play for each card removed this way.)
Flying
Modular 3 'It's a bird, it's a plane.'
0/0
Will Nahiri accidentally open Zendikar back up to Eldrazi?
Ugin is presumably fully occupied in the Mediation Realm./?
Sorin and Arlinn are attempting to protect Innistrad, but we don't know what that entails. Is releasing Emrakul a potential break-glass-in-case-of-emergency?
Ob Nixilis - I fully expect him to side with the Phyrexians, unless he sees them going after Halo as a threat to his goals.
What's Garruk up to? On second thought, he would seem particulary easy to compleat.
And Tezzeret - seems like the Phyrexians will kill/compleat him if they capture him back. But will he lay low or help the good guys in some way?
It seems to be telegraphed that Teferi, Elspeth, Chandra (will Ghostfire be of use?), and the Wanderer (at least getting Teferi unstuck) will play key roles in the next resistance. Clearly Halo/Elspeth are a major threat to Elesh, and of course anything time-based can undo the Phyrexians' goals.
Melira could be of better use if she gets her powers ramped up a lot, otherwise it just seems too slow at the moment.
Except that would create the traditional time travel paradox of not being able to affect the past in a way that eliminates one's presence/existence, because if that happens, then one wouldn't have been able to travel back to affect time, repeat, etc.
So Sarkhan has to exist. The previous iteration of him had to have gone to the past, but in a way the doesn't jeopardize his existence (think Back to the Future 1). The only way to ~neatly~ solve that is to make it such that he always has a reason to travel back - and when he comes back, he takes his own place.
Given that he's destined to travel back, the only detail to muck around with or keep consistent is *why*. As far as we know, the only consistent reason is 'Save the Ugin, save the world.' Which could mean that DTK *starts* with dragons in charge, but doesn't necessarily finish that way. I'm not sure if they've specifically dated DTK (it's just advertised as alternate timeline, yes?) - If it's a DTK that occurs/starts before Sarkhan is born, then things still have a chance to unfold in a way that creates a consistent movtive for Sarkhan. The problem I see with keeping dragons in charge through the conclusion of DTK and rise of Sarkhan, is that it would create a Sarkhand that doesn't have a reason to bail, which prevents the events that lead to that point - ergo, paradox.
Tarkir 1.0
Original Ugin v. Bolas (and Yasova) result - Dragon apocalypse (thanks Yasova!) & Ugin dead.
Sarkhan grows up in no-Dragon Tarkir (1.0), which causes him to seek out Nicol Bolas. (Let's mark this point as Bon Voyage)
Tarkir 1.1
Alternate Ugin v. Bolas (and Yasova) result - Dragons survive (thanks Sarkhan!) & Ugin healing away in hedron cocoon (unbeknownst to Bolas)
Clans continue to fight vs Dragons.
Here's the out - what if, the clans eventually wipe out most/all of the dragons (just much later than original), thus preserving the motivation for Sarkhan 1.1 to seek out Bolas? (Save the dragons! Bon Voyage!)
Timeline then drops Sarkhan 1.0 into Tarkir after Sarkhan 1.1 leaves (thus avoiding the 2 Sarkhans in one place paradox), except now he knows where to go find Ugin, and Ugin isn't dead. Him and/or Sorin then can revive Ugin and they go try again to fix the Eldrazi problem.
TL;DR - Sarkhan was always destined to seek out Nicol Bolas. So however the story unfolds, that motivation (i.e. dragons dying) needs to be preserved. It doesn't really matter that much if that event (dragons dying) occurs l000 yrs in the past (with Yasova's assist), or in the recent past (clans eventually gain the upper hand), as long as it happens.
My Boros guildpack was
Boros Reckoner (R)
Boros Keyrune (U)
Boros Charm (U)
Homed Lightning (U)
Boros Guildgate
Skynight Legionaire
Martial Glory
Daring Skyjack
Zarichi Tiger
Guildscorn Ward
Aerial Maneuver
Smite
Bomber Corps
Furious Resistance
Structural Collapse
The Rakdos Guildpack was
Chaos Imps (R)
Rix Maadi Guildmage (U)
Ultimate Price (U)
Goblin Rally (U)
Rakdos Guildgate
Rakdos Shred-Freak
Skull Rend
Annihilating Fire
Batterhorn
Bellows Lizard
Viashino Racketeer
Grim Roustabout
Catacomb Slug
Perilous Shadow
Deviant Glee
The specimen was euthanized (died) before the contagion could spread (goal).
So my interpretation was that they *want* the contagion to spread, but they couldn't get the host/carrier to stay alive long enough for that to happen.
Based on that, I would guess the creature gets 1 or more -1/-1 counters and infect (since they want it to have the ability to infect other creatures). Those -1/-1 counters kill it before it does too much damage.
Counters + infect straight up isn't very 'blue'
So here's a thought -
Target creature gains infect. Each time target creature becomes tapped, put a -1/-1 counter on it. Tap target creature.
It fits in blue's 'defensive' 'tapping' abilities as well as punishing creatures for attacking (Also blue).
Blue Bear
Echo - If you pay echo, this becomes a Phantom Monster
but you can pay whenever, however *and* it has relevant creature type and lord skills.
Has basic land types
Strictly inferior to original duals
Minimal overt risk (e.g life loss)
Minimal overt gain to opponent
No memory issues (i.e. having to remember what it is)
Land - Forest Mountain
CIPT, unless you return a land to your hand.
The drawback is a stunted mana development (which may be benign to newer players), yet it also provides a slightly challenging decision of 'how badly do i need the mana this turn?'
Here's my oddball prediction that extended from the 2 poison hits in the Orb.
Target player gains protection from poison and/or counters.
As far as I can tell, this satisfies the "something never granted before" as well as the "not to a permanent".
Although, I don't see why this protection can't/wouldn't be extended to creatures. It would seem to make sense in a counter-heavy block to have a card that can cause them to fall off.
So I would assume it's on an uncommon and/or rare card.
What if, R&D tacked on an extension to poison in one of the following ways.
Target player/opponent gets a poison counter and loses two life (thus establishing a link between poison and life lost)
or
Remove a poison counter from a player : That player loses two life. Any player can play this ability. (Again, establishing the link between a poison counter and life).
And from that, the idea came to me (and someone has probably thought of this) -
"A card that gives protection from something never granted before—and not to a permanent" .... Target player gains protection from poison and/or counters? (however that would be templated).
Not a permanent
Spells on the stack
Graveyard
Library
Players
Protection from counters would be completely new, and yet fitting in the theme of Lowryn block + Shadowmoor. After all, since Lorwyn + Morningtide were so eager to grant +1/+1 counters, it only seems logical that Shadowmoor would remove/take them away, neutralize them (with -1/-1 counters), or prevent them from getting put on in the first place -> protection from counters.
"Permanent" scars? As in something that puts a cap on your opponent's life total? How would this be represented? Something that caps the life total as long as it's in play or in your graveyard (otherwise, how would you keep track?)?
Added - 1 hit for "total", 0 for "can't"/"cannot", 36 for "life", 0 for "maximum".
Pro - gets beefy quick
Con - can you draw another land from your deck through your regular draw? Other than what's in your hand already, i think this locks out drawing lands. And if there's some way to pacify it ...
Denying Channelkeeper
(+Legendary?) Land Creature - Island Wizard
1/1
(Denying Channelkeeper isn't a spell, it's affected by summoning sickness, and it has "T: Add 1 to your mana pool.")
Channel - 2UU, Discard Denying Channelkeeper: Counter target spell.
(+Denying Channelkeeper is blue.?)
The name is too long, but other than that, is it not overpowered as a manland (summoning sickness is a drawback)? Should it be Legendary? Would it be "Legendary" or "Legend"?
If it would need nerfing and a Legendary clause isn't enough, I would playtest a FoW-like channel cost instead - 3UU, -1 life, remove a blue card ... but that starts to get too wordy.
Artifact Creature - Bird Construct
Delve (You may remove any number of cards in your graveyard from the game as you play this spell. It costs
Flying
Modular 3
'It's a bird, it's a plane.'
0/0
Next:
1: Ninjutsu or Flash
2: Madness or Convoke