I still think that the closest we can ever possibly get to the experience of a sixth color is by starting a block off with only four and adding the fifth one in in the later sets. (That fifth color would almost have to be Blue, of course. "Wizards finally bans Island", and all that. And a blue-less setting just makes more sense than the alternatives, as a parched, desert environment without scholars. Taking out white or black looks more like letting the other of that pair dominate, taking out green feels too artifact-y, and I'm not even sure what an absence of red would even look like, other than an ice age, and that's already been done too.) That would certainly be unique...
Five sets, each one color-imbalanced like Torment was way back when. Because we really need to get the other 16 lands implied by Torment's multis into the game...
(Alternatively, Large-Small-Large with the large sets being color-imbalanced with two heavy colors. Or Five sets, with the first one normally balanced and Large and the others doing the non-black colors, possibly releasing two at a time in distinct boosters.)
ETA: One more similar idea: Large Small Small, but the first set has only four colors represented, the second is even more imbalanced toward the missing color than Torment was, and the last one is normal but with the other colors 'reacting' to the returning color.
Yes, because the point of the oracle wording is to keep the card as close to its original functionality as possible while still working in the current version of the rules. This is why they can't just suddenly errata the whole card in a way that doesn't keep it close to its original function as an Aura that reanimates creatures. Being an Aura is a key part of the card's functionality. Is it elegant? No. But Wizards are consistent and it makes sense.
I think that they could have done better just having it an Enchantment-Aura/Enchant Creature and given it rules text allowing and requiring it to target a creature in the graveyard when cast. Although flavor-wise, it really ought to be able to be able to be moved to a different card currently in a graveyard with Enchantment Alteration, and no wording of the card has (and probably no wording remotely able to fit onto a physical card could have) had that feature...
As one of the judges mentioned, green + gold = leprachauns. And other kinds of faeries. (Faerie gold typically has the property that if you don't spend it, it disappears by dawn [end of turn?])
It occurs to me that if they do a partial split set with both types sharing the same pool of rares and mythic rares but having unique commons and uncommons, they've pretty much eliminated most of the objections posed here. It's the rares and mythics that would drive any price difference, so that wouldn't happen...they'd have to work to keep things balanced for limited, but that's easier that balancing chase-rare-ness.
One more psuedo-evidence thing: I'm pretty sure that they've been letting us know the names of the next two expansions at any given time for a while...the fact that they haven't done a bugle arcana on SOM-block #2 yet is a point in favor of there being something about it they want to keep under their hat for a while longer.
Hm...this would be, essentially, like releasing two small (AN/AQ type small, that is) expansions simultaneously. At which point it one might conclude that one of them might be called "Mirrodin Pure" and the other "New Phyrexia", because neither one of those names makes sense for the two sets taken together, really. Which would mean that the third set's name is still completely unknown, unless there's a surplus trademark out there I don't remember...
(Alternatively, they could have a lot of the cards be the same in both sets. Maybe even all of the commons, rares, and mythics, and this would then be doing what they did accidentally with Legends on purpose...)
Two semi-idle thoughts:
1. I wonder if they're doing this with the Online version, and what cards they'd use there...
2. I really, really hope that there isn't any way to distinguish the treasure packs without opening them. Scanned packs were a bad, bad thing before the foil wrappers. I have some worries about changes in the cardstock over the years and extremely sensitive scales...
Sinkhole is an interesting choice. So much for the 'reserve list only' theory. I wonder,though, if they aren't going largely with a Land theme in these cards as well as the main set. (Other than the power 9...) (and Lich, which at least is a heavily mono-colored card) (In which case, Gauntlet of Might, Kudzu, Cyclopean Tomb, Mishra's Workshop might be more likely than Raging Rivers or Chaos Orbs.)
If they printed secret new rares, the secondary market would explode. Mythics is one thing, old cards is one thing, but having playable cards that are almost impossible to find is bad. Bad bad bad. That's why something like that would never happen.
Except, of course, for the time when it did happen. (Super Secret Tech). (Well, just as playable as the normal cards in that set, at least)
And they do sometimes like re-trying tricks that went okay in Un- sets...
I wish they would reprint counterspell. Although if it were up to me and there was no possibility of counterspell getting reprinted I would print this in the new half of M10:
Some counterspell UU
Instant
Counter target spell. It's controller gains life equal to that cards converted mana cost.
I've always called that hypothetical card "words to plowshares". Would be nice to see it in print...
The Gauntlet is a strange case. It's sitting right there on the Official Reserve List, but is still not italicized on the FTV-Candidates Arcana, even after a couple of rounds of editing. (A few days ago, for example, Ali From Cairo wasn't in italics. It is now, but the Gauntlet still isn't.).
Ah, if they create a new mechanic for it, I can see it, but Cycling was suggested, and I personally think that a card that is actually one spell in some instances, but also is your one-drop creature and a card drawing spell might be a little too powerful. But I could be completely wrong.
Oh, you can always balance it out with other negative effects. (Cycling: B. When you Cycle, put a 1/1 zombie token into play and lose two life. Cycling: U. When you Cycle, put a 1/1 spirit token into play and discard a card at random. Cycling: R. When you Cycle, flip a coin and put a 1/1 goblin token into play under your control if the toss was heads, or under target opponent's control if it was tails. Etc, etc.)
Well, there can be some 'virtual' one-drops, at least, with the right mechanics. Cycling cards with 'when you cycle' effects, for one. For a creature, they could always make a 'reverse Evoke' mechanic ( Image:[Cost, which might be as low as one mana on some cards]. You may pay the Image cost and [discard/remove from game] this card whenever you could play an [instant/sorcery]. If you do so, put a token into play with the same name,type, power, and toughness as this card) )
(Alternatively, Large-Small-Large with the large sets being color-imbalanced with two heavy colors. Or Five sets, with the first one normally balanced and Large and the others doing the non-black colors, possibly releasing two at a time in distinct boosters.)
ETA: One more similar idea: Large Small Small, but the first set has only four colors represented, the second is even more imbalanced toward the missing color than Torment was, and the last one is normal but with the other colors 'reacting' to the returning color.
Or even " K, thx, Bai"
I think that they could have done better just having it an Enchantment-Aura/Enchant Creature and given it rules text allowing and requiring it to target a creature in the graveyard when cast. Although flavor-wise, it really ought to be able to be able to be moved to a different card currently in a graveyard with Enchantment Alteration, and no wording of the card has (and probably no wording remotely able to fit onto a physical card could have) had that feature...
I'd like to see Mistform Ultimus in the set too.
One more psuedo-evidence thing: I'm pretty sure that they've been letting us know the names of the next two expansions at any given time for a while...the fact that they haven't done a bugle arcana on SOM-block #2 yet is a point in favor of there being something about it they want to keep under their hat for a while longer.
(Alternatively, they could have a lot of the cards be the same in both sets. Maybe even all of the commons, rares, and mythics, and this would then be doing what they did accidentally with Legends on purpose...)
1. I wonder if they're doing this with the Online version, and what cards they'd use there...
2. I really, really hope that there isn't any way to distinguish the treasure packs without opening them. Scanned packs were a bad, bad thing before the foil wrappers. I have some worries about changes in the cardstock over the years and extremely sensitive scales...
Except, of course, for the time when it did happen. (Super Secret Tech). (Well, just as playable as the normal cards in that set, at least)
And they do sometimes like re-trying tricks that went okay in Un- sets...
I've always called that hypothetical card "words to plowshares". Would be nice to see it in print...
The Gauntlet is a strange case. It's sitting right there on the Official Reserve List, but is still not italicized on the FTV-Candidates Arcana, even after a couple of rounds of editing. (A few days ago, for example, Ali From Cairo wasn't in italics. It is now, but the Gauntlet still isn't.).
Like I said: strange.
Oh, you can always balance it out with other negative effects. (Cycling: B. When you Cycle, put a 1/1 zombie token into play and lose two life. Cycling: U. When you Cycle, put a 1/1 spirit token into play and discard a card at random. Cycling: R. When you Cycle, flip a coin and put a 1/1 goblin token into play under your control if the toss was heads, or under target opponent's control if it was tails. Etc, etc.)