Its interesting to note that this guy is pretty close to having X.5 power.  Wonder if they've ever toyed with ways to port the 1/2 'Un' mechanic onto "real" cards. 

I don't know what stupid quick means honestly.  There is no Vintage scene around me to judge, but ANT in Legacy has a high turn 2 win %.  How much can Wheel honestly improve on that? 

Would unrestricted Wheel of Fortune make Burn viable?

How about

RR

Whenever a red spell you control deals damage to an opponent, that opponent discards cards equal to the damage dealt

Well I haven't tried this, but what if Body Double is not your top creature in the graveyard?  Are you allowed to order any way you want off Hermit Druid's ability?

Could someone explain some of the various instant kills you can get with Dread Return this way? 

I think it is more pervasive than even that.  It would make for an interesting discussion, but most of the top 10 is going to come from the last few I would think

Not sure about cost, power/toughness, color etc but I am just floating an idea

This creature has all keyword abilities that do not require an argument to be specified

(An argument is an object, player, cost, type, quality, number N, subtype activated ability, ability or text)

Therefore the keyword abilities in question would be deathtouch, defender, double strike, first strike, flying, haste, intimidate, lifelink, reach, shroud, trample, vigilance, banding, rampage, flanking, phasing, shadow, horsemanship, fear, provoke, changeling, persist, wither, exalted and haunt, sunburst,  and epic

This list only includes keyword abilities that function while in the battlefield because flash, evoke split second and conspire are not really applicable as they function on the stack.  So the ability may need to reed "all keyword abilities that function in the battlefield that do not requirement an argument to be specified)

I am not sure that Haunt or Persist would work since I don't know if the creature will keep those abilities when its put into the graveyard.  It may be better to say all STATIC keyword abilities.

Also note that Indestructible is not a keyword and neither is unblockable. 

Problematic abilities are Defender and Epic.  I am not sure what can be done to eliminate Epic.

It may be better to make a creature like

When ~creature~ comes into play choose 10 static keyword abilities that function in the battlefield and do not require an argument

(An argument is an object, player, cost, type, quality, number N, subtype, activated ability, ability, or text)

Also, it is unclear if things like Radiance are actually keyword abilities or not.  One surprising ability that is called a "keyword" but said to have no game effect in itself is Imprint.  It is on the same list as Grandeur, Chroma, Hellbent, etc

One last thing to note is that if I confine it to static abilities, that eliminates Exalted and Provoke which are triggered abilities.  Banding however is a static ability.  On the plus side it may eliminate Epic since Epic is both static and "delayed trigger"

Finally, I don't think this could be used with Sunburst but I could be wrong

One more lastly, even though you could have "landwalk" as a landwalk ability, the keyword still requires a type where a type includes supertyes and subtypes.  So I don't think it is valid either.

The general idea is to specify a set of abilities without having to list them all on the card so perhaps it is a fool's errand.  There are 25 abilities that I would like to include (not counting persist and haunt but counting exalted and provoke and epic)

The problem with Tarmogoyf is that he needs to be at least 4 power to be worth 2 mana in a deck trying to win this fast.  Also, the cards that combo with him are Land Grant and fetchlands in particular but those are both added vulnerability to Duress/Thoughtseize and Stifle. 

Also, Double Cleave is good but gives no evasion and costs 2 mana.  It also basically requires you to play too many pump.  Thats why its an "all-in" strategy.  You're going to be stuck runnign 18 pump because you need 2 to combo with Berserk.  And you probably need some of it to be free because you can only generate so much mana in a given turn.  Thats the real strength of Briar Shield, not just its extra point of damage.

It also forces you to run creatures with more base power because it makes a big difference with berserk.  Thus, Rogue Elephant, Hidden Herd, Shletering Ancient (maybe..), other Hiddens (Gibbons, Guerrillas,..)

Berserk Stompy is definitely NOT a good deck for exactly the reason Top Secret states above: it isn't a consistent turn 3 deck.  Without Berserk you have a hard time winning turn 3 at all, and any disruption in the form of creature kill or blockers also thwarts you most of the time.

The reason I brought it up are two: first, its actually BUDGET, unlike the deck with 24 lands that average over $20 each.  And second, there ARE some lessons to take from mono-G builds.  As an implicit third reason, I will the fact that the mana base for a domain deck is ridiculously vulnerable in a deck that desperately needs consistency

So I don't, but I'm still not convinced that these domain beaters are a whole turn faster than the same old green dorks that have been in rotation for years.  Nor do I think they apply significantly more pressure in the "late game".  So, basically..whats the point?

I like the idea alot, and would probably try Double Cleave personally, but I don't think theres a good applied example yet

MOO
(my opinion only)

One card that has been successful in the past is Root Maze but it is only playable if you forego fetchlands

Yes, mono-Green

Other than the double strike+pump combo, none of the creatures proposed in this thread are significantly better than Rogue Elephant, Hidden Herd/Skyshroud Elite, Vine Dryad, Nettle Sentinel or even Skarrgan Pit-Skulk (which I don't think is the best in tpye 1).  I've also had good success with Hidden Guerrillas, a card almost everyone has to read whenever I play it.

In Legacy, I think there are decks that have success with Kavu Predator although he is debateable.

Also, whatever "going the distance" factor a Zoo deck might give you, it almost certainly pales before the fact that a manabase of basic forests is Wasteland proof. 

Zoo creatures are hader to cast both in terms of mana cost and color requirements and without pump they are simply terrible 1 and 2 power dorks, just like a stompy creature base.

I am pretty sure that Berserk Stompy is going to be just as fast and less expensive than making an all fetch/duals manabase.  And the decks you're proposing have no disruption so thats out as an advantage.

Your pump would probably look like

4 Bounty of the Hunt
4 Might of Old Krosa
3-4 Groundswell
2-3 Invigorate
4 Berserk

If I cast a card that is countered by my opponent's Chalice of the Void would this trigger a card that says "If a spell was countered by an opponent.."?

Sorry about that, I was unclear.  The positivism I meant was the attempt to quantify "the metagame" as more or less a function of what cards are played in what proportions, which decks (I suppose you could call these "card spaces") are most recurrent, and so on.  The fact that this is not entirely the case appears to us in at least two ways

A. dramatic shifts accompanying important changes in the Banned/Restricted list and other regulatory changes ("important" here being tautological I guess)
B. gradations attributable to many external factors such as region/locale, powered vs unpowered, prominent commentators, "teams", and so on

And no I don't think Bayesian analysis is metaphysical -- metaphysics is considering the concept of "non-linear system" to be an Ideal and given examples to be mere figments thereof.  Steve is actually much closer to metaphysics than anyone else.

In my opinion, for years the entire format has revolved around the single question of 'What happens when blue reaches a critical density and Force of Will is the only remaining culprit?'  This is why I think Steve's attempt to make a new taxonomy of the restricted list is entirely an artifact of a very odd, very belated, and likely very short, moment in time.

Finally, the difference between positivism and a dialectical approach: consider an engine.  You can look under the hood and identify all of the myriad processes that are underway while an engine runs.  But at the end of the day you want to talk about whether the car runs.  "Putting it back together" requires more than isolating the ensemble of processes and reactions and then assigning them individual causative powers

Steve, you're being ridiculous. There is no "metaphyiscs" of Vintage.  For the Greeks of antiquity "meta" did not mean beyond but "not".  So "not physics".  Only..everything is physics.  Hence, no metaphysics period. Your aggressiveness is getting in your way -- people are telling you, but you ain't hearing.  And when you spend 50 pages offering knowledge without wisdom, poeple are apt to get a little warm.

What you're missing is that you take things apart not to show what a mess you have but so that you can put it all back together again in a more intelligible form.  I don't think Ambivalent Duck and I quite again on the method in that I don't think a positive approach (as in positivist) actually tells you the most important information, but you ain't ready to debate him about this, Steve.

Then again, I read GW Hegel so what do I know..