This card looks insane:

Reiterate
R
Instant     
Buyback 3
Copy target instant or sorcery spell. You may choose new targets for the copy.

This one is going in my stack for sure.

If you really intend to play casually a good printer is much more cost effective and will look about the same in quality.  Go for the real stuff or don't get any at all.

Unless you are a collector why does it matter?  If a card can pass every physical and visual test except a water or light test I don't see what the problem is?  If it fools me and fools everyone else than as far as I am concerned its a Lotus - conterfeit or not.  If no one could possibly find out unless they went through extensive testing then I would play it in non-proxy tournaments and wouldn't care.  If it looks like a spade call it a spade.

Which one of these questions did you enjoy answering the most?

Thank you sir, may I have.....another?

---OH...how about a real question I just thought up. 

If Wizards were to ban hammer Yawg Will would Vintage turn into Legacy?

How about not only leave all mana accelerators restricted, but restrict all unrestricted mana accelerators as well?  I would like to see a meta flushed out that would prove or disprove the affect on our modern card pool older cards would have if they were unrestricted.  It would be interesting to hold a few tournaments with this "Stupid Broken" format and see exactly how "Stupid Broken" it really is.  I have the feeling that it wouldn't necessarily be Combo winning all of the games but the coin flip would certainly be even more important that ever.  So my proposal is this:

1. Restrict all of the mana accelerators that are not currently restricted.
2. Hold a few local tournaments with at least 20 players.
3. Record who won the coin flip with who one match number 1.

I bet it would be 65-75% 'Win the coin flip and win match number 1.'  The least something like this could do is be strangley annoying... or fun, and the best it could do is end this line of thinking for all time.

Just my 3 cents.

My list includes my personal favorite and then others I really liked

Favorite:  Lone Wolf and Cub - I believe this is a must read.  It may be considered Manga but is really just an early graphic novel in my opinion.

Sandman by Neil Gaiman - obviously
Sin City - obviously
40 days of darkness
The Walking Dead

And, it might not count but:

100 Bullets rocks too.

Of the ones I posted above I like this one the best, and submit it as my submission.
trying saying that 3 times fast.

Unconvincing Empathy
~Sucks to be me?  Sucks to be You!

Although, I was dissapointed that "turn the tables" was already taken because it seems fitting in a game sense not a flavor sense.  If it was an unglued card it would be fun to call it musical chairs.

I thought we were doing flavor text as well.  I haven't seen any other text submitted.  Did I jump the gun with my post above?  That being said I voted Sorcery primarily to make the cost somewhat playable.  It also, I belive, allows for easier use in practically any deck, rather than constructing one that is built specifically to play this card.

I thought something along the lines of dual personality or a chance reverse of magic...chance being a great theme for red as chance is chaotic.  So with that being said here are my suggestions:

Unconvincing Empathy
~Sucks to be me?  Sucks to be You!

Or on a less silly side.

Parallel Possession
~The beasts exorcism became its deliverance through my possession.
al-Fallar the un-Willing(or unlucky?)

and one I found on google..though I can't think of a good flavor text... maybe chicken?

notorious possession

My vote goes towards Sin City and possibly Hell Boy.  Batman Begins is right up there though.  Anyone want to put up a poll?

Does anyone else feel that Akroma angel of wrath deserves a bit more value than minor impact.  It really is the best card from that set, and Oath, while having other options, doesn't have as great a finisher as Akroma.  I also think the fish cards Kira and Ninja deserve more credit than 'minor impact'.  Unless of course, you consider sideboard worthy only as a minor impact.   I also think Sword of Fire and Ice deserves a nod as arguably having the most impact an equipment card has had next to the Jitte.

Ok then, if it is supposed to be like that I don't see any problem with it as is.  Great design concept and totally broken (if you meet the conditions to break it.)

Nice!

Wording needs a change because if Removing library from the game is part of the cost there is no way you will be able to draw 10 cards (unless of course this is the point of the spell?).  Otherwise try something like:

Mind Leveler
4UU

Sorcery
"Draw 3 cards and untap all permanents you control"
Kicker UU
If you paid the Kicker cost Draw 7 cards and then remove your library from the game.

Kicker would give you the option of not having to die when you cast it.

The community as a whole is willing to accept the stupidity that is Will because its Type 1 and stupid things happen with other cards too.  As long as the game remains fun and people dont have to play "Ravager vs Anti-Ravager"(Will vs Anti-Will) decks, people will still have fun and wont think Will needs to be banned.  So what we are all saying to you based on your criteria and the current state of the metagame......SO WHAT?

Ok, I will put a response to this as easily and quickly as possible (for me that means keep reading, sorry).  My point is proven in your statement.

Those decks in the metagame that are resilient against Mana Drain decks (Will decks) redundancy do so without having to play specific hate cards.  It is BECAUSE they do not play specific hate cards that I believe Will and "Fundemental Rule Breaking" is not POWERFUL enough in both strategic and intrinsic ability to be banned in the current state of Vintage July 31, 05.  Now, at some point when players are FORCED to use SPECIFIC HATE in order to have a viable deck, then that is the time to Ban it.


Quick comment on this, I NEVER supported the restriction of 3Sphere.  I still think it was a bad move and Wizards should have allowed another 3 months for format adaptation to fully become realized.


I dont mean to use your entire quote but what I want to say is this:
Wizards still has yet to inform the public what they feel their offical reason to banning is.  Ravager didn't cause non-interactivity it was just "unfair".  Now, allow me to state an opinion on Bannings/Restrictions.  They occur when a vast enough part of the community feels they are unfair to the point that the game becomes unfun and people stop playing.  Even Vintage players purchase cards and Wizards doesn't neccessarily make this game for their health.


When you say "People feel that it is acceptable to lose to it because they had a chance to play" it is that measure of fairness I talk of.  Its Vintage, its bahroken, people expect weird shit to happen.  Its part of the game and is thus acceptable to the extent that it isn't a recurring theme.  None of the decklists in the past have proven that Will is winning to the extent that people have measured its "fairness factor" toward the "I feel cheated" side so I doubt that Wizards will ban it, and that the majority of people feel it needs to be.


The only TRUE hate that can eliminate Will is Cap or Extract.  It doesn't by-pass specific hate cards but only ones that can also potentially hurt Will.  If you play careful around them or get into top deck mode then sure, it creates a huge gap of Card Advantage.  But, if that were truely a problem to the point that this meta felt unfair to players (and thus they stopped playing like back in the Acadamy days) then players that did want to stick around would be playing 4x Extract at the very least.

Thank you for at least saying you have done some testing and providing some informed information to the community.  Could there be anyway I could convince you to share a few of the possible decklists to see what decks you believe would be say, Tier 1 and Tier 2 decks after a Will Banning?


But, is banning will and opening pandora's box of possibility truelly worth it?  And, if you say yes, then I believe you think this metagame is stagnant based on power level of certain cards which is absurd.  The massive card pool that is Vintage Magic will only get larger every year, and every year there will always be the same powerful cards from each set that are better than anything in comparison.  This does not make it unfair that you cannot try different cards, it makes those cards weak.  I am sorry, but just because some cards cannot be played due to a lower power level does not mean we need to ban Will in order to make a few sentamentalists and "deck builders" happy.  Some cards are better than others DEAL WITH IT!

to Steve:

But again, are these decks that OUT OF CONTROL that Will needs to be banned?  Is the real hidden argument here that 'we dont want Gifts restricted if it proves that it needs to be even if the cost of leaving it unrestricted is banning Will?'

Yes, another point for the "Will makes cards become restricted" team.  The same is true for other cards on that restricted list like Lotus and Moxen and Draw 7s.  Workshop was utimitley the demise of 3sphere and it isn't even on there!


All for what? so we can play with different cards because Gifts/Drain/Will is to powerful in the same deck and Gifts may have to be restricted at some point?  We are talking about killing off several deck types at the cost of a future restriction.  That my friends is chicken little as uninteded card interactions when Wizards prints the cards will always lead to restrictions.

Two things, firstly I agree to that the burden of proof to Ban Will falls not on the defense but on the accusers.  You need FACTS before this jury we call a community is going to convict Will.  Cold hard numbers people!  This doesn't mean "Will is abusive blah blah" it means, look at this deck, its like LONG and cannot be stopped!!! The meta will be decks with Will and decks with Extract itll be horribleness!

What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor. Real wrath of God type stuff! Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!  Forty years of darkness, earthquakes, and volcanos!  The dead rising from the grave!  Human sacrifices, dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

Secondly, Kl0wn / Glacial Blue, please dont start a flame as I do believe this conversation has at least presented good arguments for Banning which may come up not just with Will, but with other cards in the future too.  This criteria that we are all pounding at is important to all of us and name calling and sarcasm are too much even when it gets emotional.  I formerly apologize to the boards if anything I typed was taken in this manner.  It was not ment to be harmful to individuals or to the community.


I am done with this post.  I have really enjoyed it and will continue to read it, but I am done and thank everyone on the boards its been fun.  So I will make my final point in one easy sentence (if you read this far I congratulate you!):

Will though powerful, is not felt to be unfair enough by the community to justify playing specific Yawgmoth's Will hate cards, losing players to a stagnant UNFUN metagame, and may cause future restrictions, but until the point that the metagame becomes unfun to the majority of players because of the "uneccessary restrictions" or unfairness that is Will, it need not be Banned.(yet)

I concede to your point.  Your last post does indeed prove that restriction didn't nueter Will enough along side almost all of the other cards listed on the restricted list.  I will not however, agree that banning it is a necessary step to "fix" the metagame.  Yes, the only way to eliminate the power of Will is to ban it as you have said, but my questions are these:

1.  Is even a restricted Yawgmoth's Will enough that the metagame hasn't been able to shift since its creation?
2.  Has Yawgmoth's Will created a stagnant Vintage metagame with little or no development that disables the use of newer and older cards to constantly flux in and out of tournament worthiness?
3.  Will Banning THE CARD make the vintage meta-game more or less stable?   Essentially, will all deck types continue to be viable options or will some be underpowered?

My answers are simple so Ill try to keep them short, but Id like to know what you think.

1.  The meta has constantly shifted, just because the card is always included is because it is insanely good.  THE CARD shouldn't be punished to the extent of extinction just because its the best.  It must also prove to the community that nothing else but it will work (and please no more Will Anti-Will dichotomies because they are lame and hard to prove).

2.  I see that everytime a set rotates in we gain more and more usefulness out of each restricted card not just Will.  I even see oldies but goodies like Minds Eye pop up to the evolving strategies of a NON stagnant meta-game.

3.  I like to think of Will and other cards like you do, in terms of their Utility Value Points (lets just say UVP).  Well, a popular way to keep card games in check is to assign powerful cards a point value and then tell the deck builders you cannot go above and beyond a certain point value.  Will having a powerful point value if removed would take viable decks, aligned in point value with other successful decktypes, and disable them as viable all together.  Now of course everyone will think, just because its viable doesn't mean it can't get caught in the cross hairs of Bannination.  The weak must sometimes suffer for the greater good etc.. etc.. etc..  I would agree with that but to the point where I stop is that Many of the underpowered (in UVP) are decks that help keep the vintage metagame in a state of flux rather than a state of stagnation.  I can honestly see the metagame collapsing from the Banning of Will.  Will it recover?  OF COURSE it would.  Would it be better for it?  How long will it take to recover?  Who knows!

One can postulate but without trying it we cannot see for sure.  That is why in the Waterbury forum I suggested a Day 2 even where Will is Banned.  Maybe I and the rest of the community is wrong Steve, maybe you are timely and we just refuse to see it.  I am open to be proved wrong, I just challenge words and opinions (though yours are strongly based on experience and expertise dodon'tet me wrong YOU DA MAN) to come up with FACTUAL evidence to support them.
I want to see some numbers and some decklists of Why it needs to be banned.
I want to see how it is SO abused that it has created this "Will vs. Anti-Will" meta and the decklists that we can determine are STRICTLY Will and STRICTLY Anti-Will strategies (no extra strategy cuz that would be fair...remember Ravager, you had Ravager decks and those built to beat Ravager...I want to SEE Will decks and those built to beat Will).
I want to see a hypothetical future metagame without Will.  I want the decklists and I want to play in it.  Id like to see if it makes things better or just a bigger mess.

I believe in your cause Steve, but community and I need some stats to back up the need to Ban before we go crying to Wizards.

Lets get started right here because it is the best point of contention.  You are clearly a contradiction to your statements.  "Surely we could find other ways to hate out GAT?  Why then can't we just as easily hate out an already restricted card 'WILL' and not bitch about it?  If the meta is how you say, Decks that abuse Will and those that respond to it by using disruption to defeat it, then we really shouldn't bitch now should we?  I hate to get on a soap box, but as I stated in my primary argument to Steve, he was CORRECT just not timely.  YES his arguments ring true but only for a future period that we have yet to see.  For now even though Will is THE strongest card it isn't taking over the format as a singleton.  And for that matter, why can't this game have a "strongest" card.  I firmly believe that if you want the most fair and unconditional statistics to a RANDOMIZED card game called Magic then you have got to get out of Vintage and into Standard.  Until then just because the environment could have adapted w/o Will isn't a good argument in ANY SENSE OF THE WORD ARGUMENT that we cannot adapt to an environment with Will when it has ever since the card saw print.

As for this statement you made here:


Since when did Aggro not run disruption?  Even Sui back in the day - when a practically disruptionless Zoo deck was viable - ran duress and sinkhole and wasteland.  What the hell do you think those cards are?  Seriously you find me a successful Aggro decklist from the last 2 years, that was a serious contender, without disruption or at least BASIC ability to protect its threats (red elemental blast) AND LIST IT HERE FOR ME like you failed to do with this argument below.  You wont because it nigh impossible.  Oh sure you might find 1 or 2 tournament reports but a SERIOUS contender?




Give me a list of cards that are there specifically to target Will and then certainly I would bow down to you as the superior intellect in the ways of banning and restriction.
Because, as of now, if Will was as horrible as it is being presented as then people would most certainly run specific hate cards to eliminate it as a threat.  The reason no one does is because it is a Bomb, but not so important as to justify running 4x Extract.  Seriously, Mana Drain and its ilk of draw even gets Minds-Eye as a specific Hate card run against them, Will has nothing specific for it because of its redundancy other than Extract or maybe Jesters Cap.  Get REAL.

Until then Kl0wn and I have argued till blue in the face and you still have failed to properly protect the argument that AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WILL IS SO DETRIMENTAL TO THE STABILITY OF VINTAGE THAT IT NEEDS TO BE BANNED.  Essentially all of us naysayers are boiling everything down to this. 

"Just because the risk factor in allowing Will to survive is high does not mean that the game cannot handle it, AS IT HAS."

Remember my statement about being able to play every viable archetype in today's vintage metagame.  Sure, some are bastardized versions like combo control, aggro control but this evolution no matter the existence of Will or not was bound to happen at some point in time with the size of cardpool that Vintage has.  And, surprise of surprise even though some people feel it a must to include Will, others feel it is a must to include Ancestral Recall AND Black Lotus AND the format is still healthy enough to have MANY viable archetypes AND viable deck options (WITH MANY THAT DON'T INCLUDE WILL IN THEIR LIST NO LESS!)

If Will were never to have existed at all in that parallel universe there would be another BEST CARD IN VINTAGE MAGIC or MOST BROKEN OF ALL TIME.  And, those negative pissers and moaners would come up with ridiculous arguments based on no factual data (or at least supply none) but positive assumption on things that MIGHT happen and call them truth.

Perhaps I should have made myself a little more clear, but I thought I didn't have to list the fact that Fish is an Aggro deck.  Its the Aggro inherent in Fish that races Mana Drain and Will both.  Yes, Null Rod was in there but it was for Mana Denial or Resource Denial...whatever you want to call it.  The same can be said now of Vial and Chalice.  Vial is not in there to avoid Will its in there to avoid Drain and FOW. 

Null Rod/Vial and Chalice are not an auto include because they are Anti-Will cards, but because they are tempo cards that race Control.  Did everyone really think to themselves..."I need me some Null Rods/Vials/Chalice's to stop stupid tricks with Will" because, if they did thats just absurd when you consider that Extract targets Will directly and is much more effective at removing it as a threat than Null Rod or Chalice is.

Null Rod/Chalice are more rounded cards that force decks that play a vast majority of artifact mana to use lands only(I know they both also do a whole lot more ie.. slaver, one drops etc).  The fact that Chalice/Null Rod diminishes the plans of combo/Will is just icing on the cake.  That is why Fish is so successful because it is so robust a deck.  The fact that Fish also runs Wastelands most of the time is more than evident that its goal is to stop artifact mana, play efficient tempo creatures and waste non-basics (because non-basics are always going to be a staple in everything that isn't mono blue).  Fish is a tempo deck that wants to out race the other decks of the format.  It is just a matter of executing its plan that it also hits Will. 

Sorry I wasn't more clear in that explanation previous.

glacial-blue said:

OK, I agree mostly with Steve's arguments but yours is strictly conjecture and opinion with loose ends and no facts.  Frankly its asinine to say the format is Will vs. Anti Will without describing what in the "Anti Will" decks IS ANTI WILL? Unless you are meaning mana control in which case it isn't anti Will just because Will can abuse cheap mana!  It is an Anti Mana strategy that just happens to work against a deck that is trying to use Will to abuse cheap mana.  Ill give you that Chalice and Rods hurts Will's strategy, but it also hurts any deck that plans on playing a bunch of 0 and 1 CC cards.  The decks you describe have a strategy that isn't distinctly meant to disrupt an opponent from casting a Will (it just happens to work well at it).  Those strategies are anti MANA DRAIN DECKS!!!!!  They are essentially anti Blue control.  When I see Fish play 2-4 main deck Extracts Ill know its anti-Will.  The truth is that "Will Decks" as you call them don't necessarily need to resolve a Will in order to win because they have other broken effects already built into them (they're fundamental rule breaking just isn't as detestable to most players) that will win on their own (unless its combo but we all know how successful that has been as of late).
Until then you need to support your words with numbers or cards or something, just don't spout off.  This rapid shift you are talking about also does not exist.  You do know that Gifts decks were around last year don't you?  You also know that 3Sphere is what kept combo in check because it forced all spells to be paid for.  Wills fundamental rule breaking is for lots of broken stuff to be played in one single turn (YOU NEED MANA FOR THIS!).  If anything the restriction of 3sphere was the biggest move in removing a potential Will vs Anti-Will meta-game.  I also know that the Mana Drain decks were the most successful at avoiding the hurt that 3sphere but on a combo deck, that is why combo control evolved...need mana and can't recur your mana artifacts?  Just play a broken ass counter spell and BAMM instant game swing.  Now, I challenge you to tell me why Will was so influential in the past 6 months of tournament play and then do so without a decklist that had the following cards in the deck:

Mana Drain
Trinisphere
Chalice of the Void
Mishras Workshop
Recoup

You may find a few but you wont find enough numbers to justify a warped meta or a rapidly evolving meta due to Yawgmoths Will.  The changes are probably due to 3sphere's restriction, Orloves Fish, and the main stay that is stax.  Yes, Gifts decks are there too, but not to the number that other decks cannot handle them.  And, might I mention, that in all of the decks that are even considered for play anymore you can still play Aggro, Control, and Combo!  Now, if Rock Paper Scissors isn't a healthy environment Ive been playing a different game then yall have for the last 9 years.

(1) Restriction Has Not Sufficiently Neutered Yawgmoth's Will

What is your "sufficient" amount?  Does it need to be as conditional as say necro is now?  or as strong but not stronger than Black Lotus?

I agree with you that Will is so good that even only one copy is too much but that is because of what the card does.  The fundamental rule in the game that Will breaks upon resolving it.  The problem with your argument against is that we all want to know how far you believe it needs to be "restricted". Because of the fundamental rule that it breaks the only way to completely eliminate what it does is to ban it but my question I pose for all of the proponents of Bannination is this:
Does the fundamental rule breaking ability that a resolved Yawgmoth's Will really warp the format to the point that the decks in our format are strictly of 2 kinds? (Those being ones that MUST resolve a Will in order to win and Those that stop that Will in order to win).

I believe that no, that is not the case.  Sure it is abused (its SOOOO easy to abuse) but not the extent in every game that it justifies Bannination.
If the fundamental rule wasn't so annoying like other rules that are broken by powerful cards (free spells, free mana, cheap draw) it wouldn't have such a big red target marked on it. Not to mention in most circles a silver border and a golden cracked egg!

To some players there are other cards that break fundamental rules that are even more annoying than Yawg Win.  Think about how rule breaking these cards are:

Mana Drain (counter and free mana)
Workshop (3 lands (mana) in one turn and unlike Lotus doesn't go away)
Balance (Land destruction, Mind Twist, wrath of god all for 1W)

Now I would argue that these cards are just as annoying to the format as Will but the difference is that Will can end a game the minute its played by enabling all the cards in your yard but these spells only setup huge game swings.  So is it the level of game swing that we need to measure against for Bannination?  If so then Tinker unlike what you have suggested would fit this criteria.

And also, as has been said IT IS THE dominant strategy in Vintage and is not affected by restriction.  I believe that it is A dominant strategy not THE dominant one, and isn't format warping due to Vintage's extreme take on the efficient use of every possible broken card that helps create huge game swings.

(2) The Development Trajectory of Vintage has Often Been a Race to Maximize Abuse of Yawgmoth's Will
The first deck to abuse Yawgmoth's Will that I witnessed in Type One was Keeper and Trix. Both decks fueled large game winning Yawgmoth's Wills. Advancements in Type One made Yawgmoth's Will more central.

I disagree that the Development of Vintage has been to Maximize the abuse of Will but I do agree that Advancements in Vintage have made Will more central.

I counter that development wasn't strictly "what can I put together with Will in order to abuse its ability" but instead "what can I build into my deck that will allow Will to help me win in a stalemate or topdeck situation."  Eventually it has become a central part of decks, but I believe that is only through the trial and error that has been vintage deck building.  I would counter that Will is a great addition to a powerful deck, not a powerful deck that needs great additions.  The same is said about every card on the restricted list except the P9 (OK maybe not Twister) where in the P9 are a great deck waiting for great additions. (0k so I cheated by using 9 cards to compare to 1 but realistically I think Wills fundamental rule that it breaks can be directly matched to all the P9 cards and still the P9 because they are used together are a better corner stone to a deck than Will is.

(3) Yawgmoth's Will is Inevitably Going to Cause More Restrictions.

I can't disagree with you on this one but as JP said:


So in conclusion I agree with you on the fact that even one copy of Will is powerful, but then again only one copy of Lotus is powerful.  I also agree that the fundamental rule that Will breaks is greater than any other card that currently exists, but I contend that it is so conditional on how your deck is built that the format is not warped to an unhealthy extent (at this point) by Will and anti Will decks. I also agree that the game swing provided by Wills fundamental rule breaking is the strongest in a single turn but that in itself cannot win games without other game swinging cards.  I disagree that the Development of Vintage has been to Maximize the abuse of Will but I do agree that Advancements in Vintage have made Will more central to deck construction.  Is it fair that we allow Will to be as central to deck construction as we allow the P9 and even Mana Drain and Workshop to be central to deck construction?  I believe yes as long as the environment is still healthy - Which it is!  Lastly, I give you that Yawgmoth's Will is Inevitably Going to Cause More Restrictions.  But is this really a comparable problem to the P9?  the P9 themselves will inevitably cause more restrictions so I don't really see your point other than saying that cards will be restricted based upon previous cards creation (thus is the problem with a format where nothing rotates out...you will inevitably find problematic card interactions).  Essentially your arguments are correct, but I believe they are not timely.  When the format is so warped that the only solution to repair it is to Ban Will then I believe your arguments will ring true to all ears.  Until then everyone is just going to say your "opinion" is not a fair argument.  when the time comes your opinion will be seen as fact because everyone will share it.

Just out of morbid curiosity I wonder what a small day two tournament at Waterbury where Will is Banned (or hell even Will and Tinker) would look like.  What would the top 8 be?  The top 16?  Would that environment be so different from our current environment?  Would we see problamatic cards emerge or cards that are currently good become horrible?  What do you think about a side tourney where Will and Tinker are banned?  That would give at least some semi solid evidence to support the for or against sides of this debate.

I have been out of the loop for a while but I can't help reading this and not adding my two cents.  As Rosewater has said in the quote above the reason why restrictions do not happen in anything but type 1 is because of the unfair randomness factor.  This tells me implicitly that the DCI and Wizards understand one of the great draws to "Vintage" Magic is the "oops I win" factor.  Banning more cards can and will alleviate that feeling of unfairness (most especially because Will is so damned unfair) but frankly a level of unfairness is always going to be inherent to Type 1 Magic unless the format becomes more liken to that of one where cards are only banned and not restricted (yeah its a huge subtle hint about Legacy that I am getting at).  Just because some cards will have to be restricted because of an unfair card doesn't take away from the game that no matter what you do to Vintage as long as cards are restricted there will always be an unfair "I win" factor to the game.  If you don't like it then you will have to think strongly about Legacy.  Besides, if Mana Drain wasn't Banned in Legacy this format would have probably lost over half of its players anyway to a more "fair" environment where you can counter something and take a game winning swing all at the same time just the game is "less" random.

Thirded.

And, one would think for a promotional card like this they would have chosen a broken cost for it.  I say Instant UW.  That makes it playable in constructed.  For now it will probably be a good chase rare to sell when the set comes out!

I didn't start the card idea so I didn't think to include one.  I would like to get a consensus on where this card should be going.
But, as that is part of the creative process I will post a current wording list.  Sorry BTW.  Also, if anyone else who has been suggesting changes to this card would chime in, I wouldn't mind changing the current wording.  For now I am going to put what I suggested yesterday as It was the last post about this creature.

@ Ephraim
I was against you through most of this post until you pointed this out.  It would still be played in limited (not a very high pick of course) but casual players and beginners would really like it.  It is certainly a Timmy card and I think the consensus wants to change it into more of a spike card.

@ Matt
This too, is a very good point.  Not to mention the noise!

Just my two cents, which I really just borrowed from Matt and Ephraim

This card appears to be closer to something good but still is strictly worse than Tribe Elder.
The creature needs to be both a utility and aggressive.  I also think it needs to be closer to Tithe than the wording above.
How about:

<CARD NAME>
WW
Creature - Farmer
2/2
If you control fewer lands than an opponent you may sacrifice <CARD NAME>
to search your library for a plains card. If you do, reveal that card then shuffle
library.
1WW: Return <CARD NAME> from your graveyard to your hand.


This creature is more aggressive and modled after Eternal Dragon and Tithe.  I also like the cost changed to WW so as to force
this creature into more mono colored decks.  The filtering ability of this card seems to be too strong to leave out the double
colored mana requirement on cost and ability.
Not that I am a big fan of White Weenie, or White Controlish decks, but this would probably see play in those as the Eternal Dragon
Saw play.  Also, by making it closer to tithe and requiring it to be in play before a land can be searched for it is functionally similar to
Tribe Elder but not so much that it makes this card worse than him.

Why not go with white like you were thinking?

Homesteader
ww
Creture - Cleric
2/2
If you control fewer lands than an opponent you may sacrifice Homesteader
to search your library for a basic land and put it into play tapped  then
shuffle your library.



OR this might be more in color.

Homesteader
w
Creature - Farmer
1/1
If you control fewer lands than an opponent you may sacrifice Homesteader
to search your library for a basic land card.  Reveal that card and put it into
your hand then shuffle your library.



The idea is sound though (creature with land advantage built into it) so don't give up.

I was wondering if a Land that could be played during your opponents main phases could work.  I was reading through the posts and the first thing I thought of was previously mentioned (cannot respond to a land by countering it because playing a land does not pass priority).  I came up with the following:

Unstable ground

Non-Basic land

You may play Unstable ground during your opponents turn.

Tap: add 1 mana to your mana pool.
All spells cost an additional 1 to play.
All lands put into play this turn are removed from the game at end of turn.

(I added the RFG clause because of the potential abuses with CoW)
I do not know if this will retain the original idea behind this post but I wanted to throw in a suggestion I thought was "outside" the box.

Most of my favorite have already been listed but I can't leave this forum without adding Twilight Samurai:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/twilight_samurai/


One of the better films I have ever seen.  The acting and cinematography are nothing short of spectacular.  The story is about a lower level samurai and how he survives in daily life near the end of the edo period and into the Meiji Period.  It is subtitled but is well worth it.