Given that there are 4 commanders in each precon, we could do 4 colors on each of its four tiers.
Consider the WUGR precon.
Tier 1 - all 4 colors in casting cost, flavor-wise it is best defined by its absence, this card would hate on the absent color (Black).
Tier 2 - 3 colors in casting cost, 1 color in activated ability. Flavor-wise it could be shard/wedge themed, but with an off-activated ability. For example with a cost of WUR we could get a jeskai card with 1G: this creature gains trample. Or a WUG Bant card with R: this gains first strike.
Tier 3 - 2 colors in casting cost, 2 colors in activated ability. Flavor-wise this is the combination of two guilds. For example we could get an Azorios cost, an azorios ability, but also with a rakdos ability.
Tier 4 - 1 color in casting cost, 3 colors in activated ability. Flavor-wise this is the opposite of Tier 2. If Tier 2 is wedges, this would be shards or vice versa. So we would get a green card, but with a jeskai-themed ability, or a R card with a bant-style ability.
This way, every shard is represents once, each wedge is represented once, each guild is represented once, and each color is represented twice. Nice and symmetric.
I really hope they do this, it makes too much sense for them not too.
"In other words, each little piece of the puzzle needs to be researched for cause, hypotheses tested, then effective hypotheses implemented over time."
While a beautiful thought, this is exactly what not to do. Issues include but are not limited to:
1) Inflated type 1 error rate
2) Introduction of confounders, distorters, and missed mediators and moderators.
3) Reifying p-values over effect sizes.
When studying a complex model such as A-> B -> C -> D -> E it is not enough to simply measure a->b, b->c, c->d, and d->e in isolation and if they are all significant call it a day. The entire model has to be run all at once. Among other issues, this is probably one of the biggest ones.
To CME:
1) Assuming 0 gender gap wouldn't we expect a clustering of between 90%-110% with an average of 100%?
Its important to remember that statistically you cannot have 110% of anything (unless you make a computational mistake). So to an extent, there will be a ceiling effect. Even under completely ideal conditions, one would expect a negatively skewed distribution with a median of say 98% and mean 95%. This is not what we're seeing, so therefore, either discrimination is real, or there are additional factors that need to be accounted for.
2) What about those identical resume studies/performance report studies/etc.? These are examples of positive evidence. As these accrue the case for sexism (vs. other covariates) improves. That said, these tend to be experimental studies and are not measured within major corporations to see what direct effect they have on wages. We have positive evidence that they potentially have impact, but little to no evidence that they do "in the real world".
3) Lawsuits are not won or lost on the basis of scientific evidence alone. If one is interested in whether sexism is real or not, lawsuits do not provide any answer. (If one is interested in how sexism is perceived in the population however, they may be of interest.)
4) Might the covariates which explain the gender gap themselves be explained by gender. Yes, of course, which is why you use Path Analysis or SEM instead of simple Multiple Regression, as I explained to Tiax.
5) My personal views - sexism is real and explains a reasonable proportion of the gender gap. That said, scientifically, not all of our ducks are in a row. There are major holes in most studies, and many improvements to the way research in this area could be conducted. As such, I cannot say with full scientific confidence that sexism explains a reasonable proportion of the gender-pay gap. (compare this to the scientific consensus on climate change).
6) Related to 4 and 5) The mechanisms through which gender influences gender-pay are exceedingly poorly misunderstood. To what extent does gender explain choice of field? pay of respective fields? initial salary? salary over time? hours worked? time taken off? willingness to work "Bad jobs" either boring or inhumane or dangerous? The degree and the mechanisms through which gender acts on all of these avenues are at best hypothesized, which leads to the dilemma how to I tackle this problem? Do I tell women to forgo "societally-friendly" jobs like nursing and teaching to go into "unfriendly jobs" like hedge-fund manager, garbage collector, or soldier? Do I tell women to go into STEM or to forgo college entirely and become plumbers or electricians or welders? Without an understanding of not only whether but how gender influences the pay gap there is little actionable information.
7) Related to 6) Should corporations be ultimately held responsible for the gender-pay gap? Only if variance associated with the corporations proves to be meaningful. If resumes/interviewing/salary negotiation type variables prove to be the smoking gun, then corporations should be held to account. If choice of occupation/# of hours requested to work/% requests for part-time work prove to be meaningful variables, then society as a whole needs to reconsider the role of women, but I would consider the individual corporations to be off-the-hook.
To Cme: The critical sentence in the Wall and Reed article is "The remaining 6.2 cents of the gap, which is unexplained, is the maximum that can be attributed to wage discrimination." This is itself the core of the problem. The approach taken is always: observe gap, add covariates, see if gap disappears. This is a fundamentally different argument than observe gap, measure discrimination, see if gap disappears. In the former case we are seeing if extraneous things (not sexism) potentially explain the gender pay gap, and then when they don't inferring sexism. In the second case, we are actually measuring directly if discrimination is causing the gap instead of inferring from absence.
Side Note: Law suits don't prove truth, at least in terms of a scientific point of fact.
To Tiax: Your argument holds for Multiple Regression, but not for Path Analysis. To the extent that researchers are using MR, you have a point. To the extent researchers are using SEM or Path Models, not so much. For better or worse, a lot of the literature is a smattering of both.
Some Stats 101:
Suppose we want to explain a phenomenon Y, we can propose explanatory variables (Xs). We can propose as few a 1 or as many as we can measure. However, no matter how many Xs you add there will always be residual error, aspects of Y unexplained by Xs.
If we want to explain the gender gap, we might want to "control for" things such as occupation choice, time out of the workforce, or any number of variables. But no matter what we pick or how many we pick, there will always be residual.
The general flaw in the argument is that any residual MUST be discrimination, when really it could be any of literally infinitely many possible other covariates. A work-around for this flaw would be to explicitly attempt to measure sexist attitudes or discriminatory practices. If these measures explained a high % of Y, then there would be positive proof for discrimination. However, as is, most evidence is negative evidence, which is inherently a weaker argument.
To date, there are >20 variables (to my knowledge) which explain at least a portion of the gender pay gap. There is no reason to think that there aren't 200 more. This isn't to say that discrimination and bias are not real, they assuredly are, but until positive proof is discovered, this "all the residual must be sexism" argument doesn't really hold water.
Define "power" then.
If I have economic power do I have power?
If I am in a group do I have power?
If I am in the majority do I have power?
If I have a weapon do I have power?
If I am part of a militia do I have power?
I assume you respond by re-stating that it is not about individual power, but group dynamic (or groups more generally).
If my group has economic power does my group have power?
If my group in the the majority does my group have power?
If my group is sufficiently well armed does my group have power?
If my group has social power does my group have power?
Group power and individual power are the same except that individuals can gain power by joining groups, but what makes groups powerful is the same as what makes individuals powerful.
So I guess I end as I start, please, define power as it pertains to the power + privilege definition.
The core problem of the "power + prejudice" argument is the power component.
For sake of argument lets assume that person A "has power" over person B.
If person A acts in a racially prejudiced manner, under both definitions, A is racist.
If person B acts in a racially prejudiced manner, we have a distinction. Under the original definition B would be racist, but under the power + prejudice definition, B would not be racist. The question becomes, which scenario are we more comfortable with?
A teacher has power over there students. Do students have the right to make racist remarks about their teacher? Do black students have the right to make racist remarks about white teachers?
Hiring managers have power over potential employees. Do Mexican potential hires have the right to spit on white managers? black managers? Gay managers? Muslim managers?
Cop shoots a black man = racial violence. Black man kills a white cop = Racial violence? Black cop shoots a black man = racial violence???
As some of these scenarios illustrate, acting on racial prejudice is all that is required for racism. The relative power, the chance of success, nor the degree of damage really changes whether or not an act is racist or not, only how terrible we feel about it. Racial prejudiced acts backed with power may feel more morally loaded, but they are just as racist as racially prejudiced acts taken by actors with no power.
At several of the rallies on college campuses, the protesters have demanded that more black faculty be hired at the university.
Isn't hiring an individual solely on the basis of their skin color racism, just as much as not hiring that individual?
Also, where are they pulling there percentages from? Are these percentages based on anything in particular?
Last, isn't focusing on blacks ignoring the problems of other minorities (sexual, religious, ethnic). I understand protesting an all WASP staff, but would BLM support hiring mexican or lesbian or buddhist faculty?
What if it were 53 simultaneous Hamletbacks (Replace Surge with Genesis Wave + 56 mana) is this even worth considering? or is it still too small? How does non-simultaneous help us with clones, wouldn't clones still work with G. Wave?
I realize its not very exciting, but how powerful would 53 simultaneous hamletbacks be? I know calculating rite with that card is not a solved problem, so dealing with 53 of them would be a nightmare, but Black Lotus, forest, channel, primal surge into 53 Hamletbacks (there are enough clones in Magic to pull this off) seems crazy large, and it even leaves us with three cards in hard to spare. If we go Black Lotus, Show and Tell, Omniscience, Primal Surge, we still only have three cards, but have omniscience out to do other sillyness (War-storm Surge?)
I miss Invasion block. Jilt was common and is essentially the same as expulsion, except you could actually cast it for 2 in an emergency.
I think you need to re-read brutal expulsion about 5 more times
I'm sure he understands all the differences between the two cards. "Essentially the same" may be an overstatement, but the two cards do do similar things, and Jilt can be cast for 2.
No, the two cards "can" do similar things, Brutal Expulsion just has exponentially more situational applications that matter to constructed.
Like making you feel bad because its over costed.
Advantages of Expulsion - 1) Devoid (mostly relevant against protection, namely etched champion), 2)Exile effect (name a 2 toughness creature that comes back that sees play, Not Vengevine, not reveillark, gravecrawler???), 3)Planeswalker effect (this has some potential value). If these were all the cards advantages over jilt, I would say the flexibility of jilt makes it the stronger card. That said, Expulsion has a fourth effect, remand effect. This does completely change what the card can do, namely, it can at least hold off any other card for one turn. But, is a four mana remand that doesn't draw you a card something you actually want to be casting? Therefore, in turns of constructed, Expulsion is a slightly better card, but not enormously better, due to the loss of flexibility. The last point in Jilt's defense is that it is common. As such, in Limited it had a substantially stronger effect on the format than Expulsion will.
I don't think your missing anything, card is going to be good.
Will it hit standard, probably but not definitely, depends on state of W/U after rotation.
Personally, I'm looking forward to letting my opponent awaken, and then use this to put lands on top of their deck.
That said, the mirror match might get awkward.
Given what we know, what can we predict about the foreseeable future of Magic.
We know that roughly, we will be alternating between new blocks and return blocks.
We know that the 5 specific planeswalkers in Magic: Origins will play major roles in the upcoming blocks.
Its not unlikely that the some of the ten planes in Magic: Origins will play major roles in the upcoming blocks.
There are a few specific storylines that are reasonable to expect in the near future.
1) Battle for Zendikar - will feature at a minimum: Gideon, Kiora, Nissa, Sorin, Ugin, Sarkhan, Jace, Chandra, Ob Nixilus
2) Rescuing Elspeth - we just did Theros Block, but Elspeth is a fan favorite, and Ajani is pretty motivated to rescue her, and Heliod needs someone to bring him down a notch. While it probably won't be for 3 or 4 years, I would be surprised if we didn't return to Theros for a "Rescuing Elspeth" type story
3) Phyrexia - Phyrexia is the poster-child magic villan. New Phyrexia is was one of the best selling sets in recent memory. We also have a large number of walkers dedicated to this plane: Koth, Karn, Tezzeret, Venser(in spirit), Elspeth (in spirit), Nicol Bolas (by proxy). That said, I suspect we won't get a return block for Mirrodin, but instead the Phyrexians will invade a new plane, like they are prone to doing. That said, the plane being invaded is unterminable at this point.
4) Demon Hunting - Lilliana is one of the 5 walkers in origins, and hasn't been mentioned thus far. That said, she kinda has her own story going in the form of hunting down the 2 remaining demons with claims on her soul. Whatever the next new plane we travel to is, I fully expect one of Lilliana's demons will be there. Garruk will also probably follow her, in his unending effort to kill her. Also, this has to happen twice.
5) Where is Nicol Bolas? - Nicol Bolas has kinda gotten mentioned basically everywhere, from Zendikar to Mirrodin to Tarkir, but hasn't really featured in a block since Alara. As much as he loves his minions, he will need to get his hands dirty in order for magic fans to remember he exists. Also, once he realizes Ugin in alive, Nicol will probably try to kill him again. Sadly, again, it is hard to predict where this is likely to take place, and is probably on a new plane.
6) Ravnica, the plane where everybody knows your name - Ravnica is a major hub for planeswalkers. At least half we know of have spent at least some time here and Vraska and Ral and specific to this plane. While I actually doubt we will get a return to return to ravnica, I do expect it to play into the story. Expect meetings to continue to happen on Ravnica, and for ravnica characters (Niv-mizzet for one) to continue to play a role in the story.
Specific predictions:
1) Zendikar - known
2) Vyrn - of the 3 "new planes" from Origins, seems most likely to have demon on it for Lilliana to deal with
3) Return to Ulgrotha - every fan wants this to happen, its somewhere for Phyrexia to invade, I want to see phyrexian vampires, a lilliana demon could be here, the portal could finally be explained (as how phyrexians got in, or who their next victims are destined to be)
4) Kaladesh - of the 3 "new planes" seems to be the most interesting. Likely for this reason, but I'm not sure storywise where this goes
5) Lorwyn - Nicol Bolas did all the Alara stuff to take advantage of the Maelstrom. Of all the things we know about in the multiverse right now, "the Great Aurora" seems the next most potent thing for Bolas to attempt to exploit. The next time we see Nicol in the flesh (instead of acting through pawns) I predict it will be here. (Also, it is one of the ten planes from Origins, so that helps the probability a little).
6) somewhere completely new - Ulamog may be dealt with in BFZ, but Kozilek is still loose, dealt with here.
7) Theros - save Elspeth arc
8)somewhere completely new - Gideon finally completes his show-down with Emrakul.
Last, unlikely places for return arcs:
Innistrad - as crazy popular as it is, there is no story reason to go here. Sorin and Lilliana's stories here are over, and noone else has ties to this plane (except Tibalt who everyone hates).
Kamigawa - crazy unpopular, not one of the ten origins planes, no real story reason. Tamiyo is only known planeswalker associated with this plane, and she seems more than happy to be anywhere else.
Mercadia - as hilarious as a return to Mercadia would be, WHY? It would be glorious in that no one would expect it, but this plane almost saw Magic die. This is perhaps the only plane hated more than Kamigawa.
Alara - All the planeswalkers associated with this plane have moved on to other story-lines. There is no character which is really aching to come back here.
Tarkir - we just did this, and the story is pretty much wrapped up.
What does everyone else think? Is there something obvious that I missed?
This doesn't really work, since you are the one playing the Scapeshift now.
You could sac lands to find your lands in your deck, but you cannot make them sac lands to find lands of your choosing from their deck.
Consider the WUGR precon.
Tier 1 - all 4 colors in casting cost, flavor-wise it is best defined by its absence, this card would hate on the absent color (Black).
Tier 2 - 3 colors in casting cost, 1 color in activated ability. Flavor-wise it could be shard/wedge themed, but with an off-activated ability. For example with a cost of WUR we could get a jeskai card with 1G: this creature gains trample. Or a WUG Bant card with R: this gains first strike.
Tier 3 - 2 colors in casting cost, 2 colors in activated ability. Flavor-wise this is the combination of two guilds. For example we could get an Azorios cost, an azorios ability, but also with a rakdos ability.
Tier 4 - 1 color in casting cost, 3 colors in activated ability. Flavor-wise this is the opposite of Tier 2. If Tier 2 is wedges, this would be shards or vice versa. So we would get a green card, but with a jeskai-themed ability, or a R card with a bant-style ability.
This way, every shard is represents once, each wedge is represented once, each guild is represented once, and each color is represented twice. Nice and symmetric.
I really hope they do this, it makes too much sense for them not too.
While a beautiful thought, this is exactly what not to do. Issues include but are not limited to:
1) Inflated type 1 error rate
2) Introduction of confounders, distorters, and missed mediators and moderators.
3) Reifying p-values over effect sizes.
When studying a complex model such as A-> B -> C -> D -> E it is not enough to simply measure a->b, b->c, c->d, and d->e in isolation and if they are all significant call it a day. The entire model has to be run all at once. Among other issues, this is probably one of the biggest ones.
1) Assuming 0 gender gap wouldn't we expect a clustering of between 90%-110% with an average of 100%?
Its important to remember that statistically you cannot have 110% of anything (unless you make a computational mistake). So to an extent, there will be a ceiling effect. Even under completely ideal conditions, one would expect a negatively skewed distribution with a median of say 98% and mean 95%. This is not what we're seeing, so therefore, either discrimination is real, or there are additional factors that need to be accounted for.
2) What about those identical resume studies/performance report studies/etc.? These are examples of positive evidence. As these accrue the case for sexism (vs. other covariates) improves. That said, these tend to be experimental studies and are not measured within major corporations to see what direct effect they have on wages. We have positive evidence that they potentially have impact, but little to no evidence that they do "in the real world".
3) Lawsuits are not won or lost on the basis of scientific evidence alone. If one is interested in whether sexism is real or not, lawsuits do not provide any answer. (If one is interested in how sexism is perceived in the population however, they may be of interest.)
4) Might the covariates which explain the gender gap themselves be explained by gender. Yes, of course, which is why you use Path Analysis or SEM instead of simple Multiple Regression, as I explained to Tiax.
5) My personal views - sexism is real and explains a reasonable proportion of the gender gap. That said, scientifically, not all of our ducks are in a row. There are major holes in most studies, and many improvements to the way research in this area could be conducted. As such, I cannot say with full scientific confidence that sexism explains a reasonable proportion of the gender-pay gap. (compare this to the scientific consensus on climate change).
6) Related to 4 and 5) The mechanisms through which gender influences gender-pay are exceedingly poorly misunderstood. To what extent does gender explain choice of field? pay of respective fields? initial salary? salary over time? hours worked? time taken off? willingness to work "Bad jobs" either boring or inhumane or dangerous? The degree and the mechanisms through which gender acts on all of these avenues are at best hypothesized, which leads to the dilemma how to I tackle this problem? Do I tell women to forgo "societally-friendly" jobs like nursing and teaching to go into "unfriendly jobs" like hedge-fund manager, garbage collector, or soldier? Do I tell women to go into STEM or to forgo college entirely and become plumbers or electricians or welders? Without an understanding of not only whether but how gender influences the pay gap there is little actionable information.
7) Related to 6) Should corporations be ultimately held responsible for the gender-pay gap? Only if variance associated with the corporations proves to be meaningful. If resumes/interviewing/salary negotiation type variables prove to be the smoking gun, then corporations should be held to account. If choice of occupation/# of hours requested to work/% requests for part-time work prove to be meaningful variables, then society as a whole needs to reconsider the role of women, but I would consider the individual corporations to be off-the-hook.
Side Note: Law suits don't prove truth, at least in terms of a scientific point of fact.
To Tiax: Your argument holds for Multiple Regression, but not for Path Analysis. To the extent that researchers are using MR, you have a point. To the extent researchers are using SEM or Path Models, not so much. For better or worse, a lot of the literature is a smattering of both.
Suppose we want to explain a phenomenon Y, we can propose explanatory variables (Xs). We can propose as few a 1 or as many as we can measure. However, no matter how many Xs you add there will always be residual error, aspects of Y unexplained by Xs.
If we want to explain the gender gap, we might want to "control for" things such as occupation choice, time out of the workforce, or any number of variables. But no matter what we pick or how many we pick, there will always be residual.
The general flaw in the argument is that any residual MUST be discrimination, when really it could be any of literally infinitely many possible other covariates. A work-around for this flaw would be to explicitly attempt to measure sexist attitudes or discriminatory practices. If these measures explained a high % of Y, then there would be positive proof for discrimination. However, as is, most evidence is negative evidence, which is inherently a weaker argument.
To date, there are >20 variables (to my knowledge) which explain at least a portion of the gender pay gap. There is no reason to think that there aren't 200 more. This isn't to say that discrimination and bias are not real, they assuredly are, but until positive proof is discovered, this "all the residual must be sexism" argument doesn't really hold water.
If I have economic power do I have power?
If I am in a group do I have power?
If I am in the majority do I have power?
If I have a weapon do I have power?
If I am part of a militia do I have power?
I assume you respond by re-stating that it is not about individual power, but group dynamic (or groups more generally).
If my group has economic power does my group have power?
If my group in the the majority does my group have power?
If my group is sufficiently well armed does my group have power?
If my group has social power does my group have power?
Group power and individual power are the same except that individuals can gain power by joining groups, but what makes groups powerful is the same as what makes individuals powerful.
So I guess I end as I start, please, define power as it pertains to the power + privilege definition.
For sake of argument lets assume that person A "has power" over person B.
If person A acts in a racially prejudiced manner, under both definitions, A is racist.
If person B acts in a racially prejudiced manner, we have a distinction. Under the original definition B would be racist, but under the power + prejudice definition, B would not be racist. The question becomes, which scenario are we more comfortable with?
A teacher has power over there students. Do students have the right to make racist remarks about their teacher? Do black students have the right to make racist remarks about white teachers?
Hiring managers have power over potential employees. Do Mexican potential hires have the right to spit on white managers? black managers? Gay managers? Muslim managers?
Cop shoots a black man = racial violence. Black man kills a white cop = Racial violence? Black cop shoots a black man = racial violence???
As some of these scenarios illustrate, acting on racial prejudice is all that is required for racism. The relative power, the chance of success, nor the degree of damage really changes whether or not an act is racist or not, only how terrible we feel about it. Racial prejudiced acts backed with power may feel more morally loaded, but they are just as racist as racially prejudiced acts taken by actors with no power.
Isn't hiring an individual solely on the basis of their skin color racism, just as much as not hiring that individual?
Also, where are they pulling there percentages from? Are these percentages based on anything in particular?
Last, isn't focusing on blacks ignoring the problems of other minorities (sexual, religious, ethnic). I understand protesting an all WASP staff, but would BLM support hiring mexican or lesbian or buddhist faculty?
Advantages of Expulsion - 1) Devoid (mostly relevant against protection, namely etched champion), 2)Exile effect (name a 2 toughness creature that comes back that sees play, Not Vengevine, not reveillark, gravecrawler???), 3)Planeswalker effect (this has some potential value). If these were all the cards advantages over jilt, I would say the flexibility of jilt makes it the stronger card. That said, Expulsion has a fourth effect, remand effect. This does completely change what the card can do, namely, it can at least hold off any other card for one turn. But, is a four mana remand that doesn't draw you a card something you actually want to be casting? Therefore, in turns of constructed, Expulsion is a slightly better card, but not enormously better, due to the loss of flexibility. The last point in Jilt's defense is that it is common. As such, in Limited it had a substantially stronger effect on the format than Expulsion will.
Will it hit standard, probably but not definitely, depends on state of W/U after rotation.
Personally, I'm looking forward to letting my opponent awaken, and then use this to put lands on top of their deck.
That said, the mirror match might get awkward.
We know that roughly, we will be alternating between new blocks and return blocks.
We know that the 5 specific planeswalkers in Magic: Origins will play major roles in the upcoming blocks.
Its not unlikely that the some of the ten planes in Magic: Origins will play major roles in the upcoming blocks.
There are a few specific storylines that are reasonable to expect in the near future.
1) Battle for Zendikar - will feature at a minimum: Gideon, Kiora, Nissa, Sorin, Ugin, Sarkhan, Jace, Chandra, Ob Nixilus
2) Rescuing Elspeth - we just did Theros Block, but Elspeth is a fan favorite, and Ajani is pretty motivated to rescue her, and Heliod needs someone to bring him down a notch. While it probably won't be for 3 or 4 years, I would be surprised if we didn't return to Theros for a "Rescuing Elspeth" type story
3) Phyrexia - Phyrexia is the poster-child magic villan. New Phyrexia is was one of the best selling sets in recent memory. We also have a large number of walkers dedicated to this plane: Koth, Karn, Tezzeret, Venser(in spirit), Elspeth (in spirit), Nicol Bolas (by proxy). That said, I suspect we won't get a return block for Mirrodin, but instead the Phyrexians will invade a new plane, like they are prone to doing. That said, the plane being invaded is unterminable at this point.
4) Demon Hunting - Lilliana is one of the 5 walkers in origins, and hasn't been mentioned thus far. That said, she kinda has her own story going in the form of hunting down the 2 remaining demons with claims on her soul. Whatever the next new plane we travel to is, I fully expect one of Lilliana's demons will be there. Garruk will also probably follow her, in his unending effort to kill her. Also, this has to happen twice.
5) Where is Nicol Bolas? - Nicol Bolas has kinda gotten mentioned basically everywhere, from Zendikar to Mirrodin to Tarkir, but hasn't really featured in a block since Alara. As much as he loves his minions, he will need to get his hands dirty in order for magic fans to remember he exists. Also, once he realizes Ugin in alive, Nicol will probably try to kill him again. Sadly, again, it is hard to predict where this is likely to take place, and is probably on a new plane.
6) Ravnica, the plane where everybody knows your name - Ravnica is a major hub for planeswalkers. At least half we know of have spent at least some time here and Vraska and Ral and specific to this plane. While I actually doubt we will get a return to return to ravnica, I do expect it to play into the story. Expect meetings to continue to happen on Ravnica, and for ravnica characters (Niv-mizzet for one) to continue to play a role in the story.
Specific predictions:
1) Zendikar - known
2) Vyrn - of the 3 "new planes" from Origins, seems most likely to have demon on it for Lilliana to deal with
3) Return to Ulgrotha - every fan wants this to happen, its somewhere for Phyrexia to invade, I want to see phyrexian vampires, a lilliana demon could be here, the portal could finally be explained (as how phyrexians got in, or who their next victims are destined to be)
4) Kaladesh - of the 3 "new planes" seems to be the most interesting. Likely for this reason, but I'm not sure storywise where this goes
5) Lorwyn - Nicol Bolas did all the Alara stuff to take advantage of the Maelstrom. Of all the things we know about in the multiverse right now, "the Great Aurora" seems the next most potent thing for Bolas to attempt to exploit. The next time we see Nicol in the flesh (instead of acting through pawns) I predict it will be here. (Also, it is one of the ten planes from Origins, so that helps the probability a little).
6) somewhere completely new - Ulamog may be dealt with in BFZ, but Kozilek is still loose, dealt with here.
7) Theros - save Elspeth arc
8)somewhere completely new - Gideon finally completes his show-down with Emrakul.
Last, unlikely places for return arcs:
Innistrad - as crazy popular as it is, there is no story reason to go here. Sorin and Lilliana's stories here are over, and noone else has ties to this plane (except Tibalt who everyone hates).
Kamigawa - crazy unpopular, not one of the ten origins planes, no real story reason. Tamiyo is only known planeswalker associated with this plane, and she seems more than happy to be anywhere else.
Mercadia - as hilarious as a return to Mercadia would be, WHY? It would be glorious in that no one would expect it, but this plane almost saw Magic die. This is perhaps the only plane hated more than Kamigawa.
Alara - All the planeswalkers associated with this plane have moved on to other story-lines. There is no character which is really aching to come back here.
Tarkir - we just did this, and the story is pretty much wrapped up.
What does everyone else think? Is there something obvious that I missed?
You could sac lands to find your lands in your deck, but you cannot make them sac lands to find lands of your choosing from their deck.