actually , i recall that warning the opponent and judges ahead of time is not enough....because by doing so, you are acknowledging that you know what you are doing may cause a problem, and yet you persist in doing it.  If you showed them to the judge beforehand, do not be surprised if they tell you to replace them.  If you do not show them, or don't replace them, expecting to simply explain the situation to your opponents, don't be surprised to be served with a DQ for Cheating.

Apparently this came up with misprinted Forests-as-Islands or vice versa, and a UG deck.  Don't know the actual case, but it's interesting nonetheless, no?

-JM

obviously, most of us probably know about the errata to Time Vault but it doesn't change the fact that the skipping an extra turn cannot be stifled....at least, not JUST that part of the ability.  Sure, you can stifle the entire untap ability, but not just the part that skips an extra turn.

-JM

Also, the scenario described (Player casts Cranial without naming a target, opponent has Ivory Mask in play) is actually a pretty clear case of Cheating.  The opponent knew that the announcement of Cranial Extraction was illegal (since I doubt the opponent is a good enough liar to successfully claim that he honestly believed the Cranial was targetting the player) and used that to his advantage.  Knowing the rules is one thing, as is using them to your advantage (sure, you can misdirect my duress.  It doesn't do anything, but you can do it).  Deliberately misrepresenting the rules as was done here is Cheating, plain and simple.

Now, the player will also get a Procedural Error - Minor warning for not clearly stating the target of his spell/illegally playing a spell, but the opponent almost certainly gets to go home early with a nice DQ without Prize in his pocket.

-JM

This situation actually is a loop.  A loop can consist of more than one turn.  The way this loop would work is that the judge would ask one player (usually the active player) how many times they would like to go through the loop.  That player gives their answer, then the other player has the chance to either interrupt the loop at any point or allow it to happen.  The loop in this case is "I go through my turn and do nothing, he does the same."  Then, according to the rules regarding loops, that loop is fast-forwarded, so it's assumed that you are now past that loop.  Say, for example, you chose to take your turn and do nothing for 600 turns.  Your opponent chose to allow this.  Thus, we now skip to "600 turns later..." at which point you must now take an action to change the game state if you can.  If you cannot, and your opponent also cannot, then the game would likely be ruled a draw.  If you can but choose not to, you will almost certainly suffer the penalty for Slow Play or worse Cheating-Stalling.

sort of an interesting way to pose the scenario, since these things are usually posed in such a way that the players have literally no outs.  The "unknown info" isn't really relevant: if the players want to interrupt the loop, they can.  Otherwise, the game's a draw.

-JM

Sadly, while i love the flavor of the card as I was always a sucker for Celestial Dawn myself, the whole "one card" thing really doesn't work that well.  The color changing abilities negate each other, with the end result of all white and black objects being black (you follow instructions in the order they're listed on the card, since time-stamping is useless here and the effects apply in the same layer).  also, according to the Oracle text for Celestial Dawn, the "All  are [W]" thing doesn't work quite right either (apparently changing mana symbols is a no-no).  The way it'd be worded is "Spells and abilities you control produce white mana instead of any other color.  You may spend white mana as though it were mana of any color."  Wordier, yes, but it's what the rules like.

I actually like the two cards thing, but they certainly don't need to be so expensive.  I'm not sure your interpretation of the life-gain/loss thing not affecting Necro's cost is quite correct, however.  That can be easily fixed, so i'd say it's not much of a concern.

"All black cards that aren't in play, black spells, and black permenants are white.  Swamps are plains.  Players may spend white mana as though it were mana of any color.
If a spell or ability would make a player lose life, that player gains that much life instead.
All white creatures with fear gain first strike and lose fear."

"All white cards that aren't in play, white spells, and white permenants are black.  Plains are swamps.  Players may spend black mana as though it were mana of any color.
If a spell or ability would make a player gain life, that player loses that much life instead.
All black creatures with first strike or double strike gain fear and lose first strike and double strike."

sorry, i just don't see a good way of making the cards into one.  The color changing thing doesn't work, and we can't change the mana symbols to split symbols (although that can easily be done via the "black and white mana can be any color" thing). 

-JM

is getting a +1/+1 counter for bouncing a permenant a blue ability?  I'm not sure.  It feels green, but then there are examples of cards in other colors that get counters for stuff like this.  Just something to think about.

I like the card overall.  I don't think it really needs any changes.

-JM

I agree with Jacob.  i don't think this card needs too much more of a drawback to be in the right place on the curve for a black creature.  The only think I see is that the drawback is more of a red one than a black one.  In order for it to really be a black drawback, you should be losing life or losing resources in some way, not just restricting the abilities of your card.  For example, see the difference bet/n Skittering Horror and Ogre Taskmaster. 

To be honest, this feels like a perfect Red card in everything except for the mana cost.  It seems simply easier to make the card Red than to rework the card to make it more Black.

Also, i'm not sold on the name.  It just doesn't seem right.  "[The] Cowardice of Curs" sounds like an Enchantment.  Unless, of course, the group term for curs is "a cowardice,"which I seriously doubt.  It is possible, i suppose, but I am skeptical.

-JM

spelling errors like "Snow-covered-Mountainwalk"? 

I'm not sure this really needs a name change, but i suppose if you don't like it, i'm not adamant about it being Rescue Dog either.

-JM

actually i'm not sure removing cards in the graveyard as a cost will make this card any good at all.  It cannot be considered a land for deckbuilding, since in all likelihood you won't be able to get any mana from it until well into the game, and even then you can only use it a few times, and you certainly can't generate much mana from it.

I like the way the current wording post is set up.  Seems safe enough that way (although it is probably stronger than City of Traitors that way).

-JM

unfortunately we can't keep the color choice and the flavor of the card.  It's a BW card as its abilities stand.  Nothing about the card is green other than the mana used to play it.  There's no green flavor here and it doesn't make sense to make the card green as is.  You could easily change the abilities to make it BG, but as it is, it's BW.

Also, the ability should be worded "Whenever enchanted creature leaves play, return <CARDNAME> to its owners hand."  IF is reserved for replacement effects, which this isn't.

-JM

agreed, as it was originally posted you needed to change it to reflect Goblin Welder's oracle text.  to be honest, I don't see this being better than Welder.  Welder's strength comes from having free artifact mana to turn into guys.  It also doesn't hurt to have a card like Mindslaver to abuse.

This is basically like a better Hell's Caretaker.  I don't really see a problem in making a RB reanimator deck good, particularly since this is pretty much the only red card you'd really want to use (um....Gamble...and....uh..... yeah thats about it). 

By the way, the reason Goblin Welder got errata was to make its ability actually work, not to prevent abusive stuff with Parallax Wave-type cards.  Two cards cannot be "exchanged" if they are in different zones.

-JM

I think it is in flavor for it to keep its abilities, but you should change the ability of Maroon a bit, since at no point do we say that the enchanted creature actually becomes a land.  as it stands, we're removing its Type and adding a Subtype, but not a type.  In MODO execution, it would look like:

- Island

not good.  I suggest something like:

"Enchant creature or Island.
Enchanted creature is a land.  (It's no longer a creature.)
Enchanted land is an Island in addition to its land types.  It does not lose its abilities."

Basically the same functionality, but i believe it works better with the rules.  In fact, although it looks like you can enchant a land that's not an island, the aura rules prevent that, so it's functionally the same as it was before.  I do love the "this man is an island" flavor.

-JM

@dandan: this has nothing to do with the card in question, but the fact that you both went for a coin toss to determine the match result screams "Cheating" to me.  The rules explicitly state that players may not use a random method to determine a match result.  I'm pretty sure this has been the case for a very long time.  Now, I'm sure you didn't deliberately cheat (you had a winning record and you said yourself you were bad, so you probably thought your deck was good), but this is certainly a case where the judge should have said "before you flip that coin, you should know that doing so is Cheating."

-JM

I just realized a little rules tidbit: This card must have "Play this ability only when you could play an instant."  For example, consider this situation:

Turn one: play this land, announce Fireball, target opponent, set X at 40, tap the land.  If they name Fireball as one of the cards, the announcement is entirely reversed.  If they don't, they're dead.  This was a problem with Rhystic Cave as well, which is why it got the same errata.

-JM

Lame though it might be, this absolutely cannot be considered anywhere close to balanced if you can add counters as an activated ability.  i think the reasoning for this has been explained by others.

Interestingly, cumulative upkeep is a cool way to make this thing grow, particularly since it helps fuel it's own upkeep while it does so assuming the cumulative upkeep is a mana requirement.  you simply reference Age counters instead of reverberation counters (btw, if you're going to put such a cumbersome name as "reverberation" on a card's counters, you should put a name to the card to help us understand why on earth they are reverberation counters and not simply Charge counters or something).

To me, it seems similar enough to Vernal bloom that it could be costed at 4 if it had the cumulative upkeep, although I admit that perhaps letting it fuel its own cumulative upkeep may be too good and it would have to be some other cumulative upkeep cost.

-JM

doubling your life-gain seems to be an idea that may invalidate creature strategies.  Something tells me Soul Warden is a lot better when she gains 2 life per creature, to say nothing of Teroh's Faithful or Exalted Angel.  Good luck racing a 12 point swing every turn.

The creature itself is also a bit too efficient for having such good abilities.  i agree it should be at least a 1/2.  A powerless creature may even be a possibility.

-JM

The white one is very very powerful.  A creatureless or near-creatureless deck can use it as a 1W terminate, which is a bit overpowered.  It certainly should cost at least 3, probably 1WW.

The black one is very strong even if it can't hit lands.  Think about how good Duress was.  This card is much better in the early game, particularly if your opponent foolishly taps out to do something as stupid as trying to develop his board with Sakura Tribe Elder.  God help him if he tries to curve out.  Yes, it is pretty bad in the mid- to late-game...if you still have relevant cards in hand by then.  If you're in a topdeck war, it's still fine to draw if your opponent has a card in his hand (you can even bluff a mana out of them if you draw a land, then this).

Is there some reason the blue one can't bounce creatures?  Chain of Vapor could, why shouldn't this be able to?

I agree that making them all require mana to use is probably not a good idea.  Varying the chain costs is probably your best bet.

-JM

This certainly seems like it may have memory issues, although not as bad as some other effects I could name.  Not necessarily an immediate concern, but something to remember.

As for the card itself, it seems very basic, and actually a bit worse than Fists of the Anvil from Mirrodin.  Unless you're targetting a First Striker that you're blocking with, very rarely is this effect going to remain from your opponent's turn to yours (unless of course you didn't need it to do anything relevant on your opponent's turn).

Come to think of it, I actually kinda like this card.  It could stand to do a bit more (haste in particular seems somewhat useful), but I think it could be fine as is.

-JM

major templating issues is right.  I've read this thing about 5 times and i have only a vague inkling of what it's supposed to do.

I'm fairly sure the wording you're aiming for is something like:

"<This> comes into play with a reverberation counter on it.
Whenever you would add colored mana to your mana pool, instead add that much mana plus 1 colorless (dunno how to do the mana symbols) for each reverberation counter on <this>.
XX: Put a reverberation counter on <this>.  X is the number of reverberation counters on <this>."

You know, the whole thing might be cleaner if you used Cumulative Upkeep instead of reverberation counters.

"Cumulative Upkeep 1.
This comes into play with an age counter on it.
Whenever you would add colored mana to your...."

A bit simpler, and probably a bit less degenerate.  Yes, you don't control it's growth, but as it is, i'm fairly sure it fuels itself to the point where you generate absolutely absurd amounts of mana and just go "I'll tap my mountain and fireball you for 49924582457.  Go."

even if you keep it as is, you probably need to make the add-counters-ability a play-only-as-a-sorcery, otherwise i see this: "I'll add 6 to my pool.  It has one counter.  I'll add one, in response I'll add one, in response I'll add one."

-JM

its name also implies a play-on-words with Exhume, which as we all know only reanimated creature cards.

Of course, if you really want to emphasize the play on words, it would go something like:

"Each player may search his or her library for a creature card, reveal it, and put it into his or her graveyard.  If a player does, that player shuffles his or her library."

But that's a bit different from the entomb functionality (and also much more abusable since for all intents and purposes it IS entomb in Dragon).

As it is, the only thing that really seems to stand out is that it should be "Remove that card from the game and put the other into your graveyard."  You're only getting a maximum of two cards, so why on earth would you have to refer to a single card as "the rest"?

To be honest, the card seems like a weaker version of Buried Alive.  Whether we want that or not is up for debate.

-JM

can we post on it?  I assume since it's not locked that we can, but if not, I hope it will be corrected soon.

I'm a bit confused as to the functionality of this card.  I assume you mean "An opponent names X cards....This mana cannot be used to play spells with the same name or activated abilities of permenants with the same name as one of the chosen cards."  Otherwise, this seems strangely over-restrictive (why should it prevent you from using it to play all spells...).

I'm not sure this is a very good fix of Ancient Tomb per se, but I think it is kind of an interesting card.  Unfortunately, I see it as interesting only in seeing in what ways it can be brutally abused.  In that way, it's much like Dream Halls: uninteresting unless it's being broken.

-JM

do we have any examples of cards with this naming scheme that are not legendary?  I can't think of any in recent memory.  I'm fairly sure the "Noun, title" is reserved for Legendary creatures, which this is not intended to be.

-JM

Nitpick: you probably only want to have it animate non-Aura enchantments since I'm pretty sure the rules don't like it when Auras become creatures (Opalessence only affected global enchantments, and I can't think of any other cards which animate enchantments).

-JM

i actually didn't mind it returning two cards, it just had to remove itself from the game, or have the discard as an additional cost to play, not as an effect of the spell.  As it is, it's quite a bit worse than regrowth, and even the new regrowth variant compares favorably against this.  Is 2 mana worth a card?  I'd say it is.

If it RFGs itself or if the discard is a cost to play the spell, then it's fine as it was originally.

-JM

Your reminder text also ignores the possibility of you playing this on a creature with a Treachery from each player on it.  If my opponent loses control of a creature he stole from me, it reverts to my control by default.  By your reminder text, that would not be true. 

For this card to work, a number of questions like this must have answers:

Suppose I play Confiscate on my creature that my opponent Bribery'd.  He plays Maroon on that creature.  Does the Bribery effect return the creature to my opponent's control?  If not, why not?

That's not even touching on the issue of whether or not the rules can handle a creature that has no controller.

-JM

I really don't like the discard on resolution.  No matter where you put the discard, you can't bring back a discarded card (you choose targets before paying costs, which is the first time you'd have the opportunity to discard anything to this, no matter how it's worded).  I think the discard should be an additional cost to play. 

As is, it is an engine with itself, without the Ravnica card.  Play this with an empty hand, bring back another copy of this and Time Walk.  Play Time Walk.  Play this, discarding nothing, bringing back the first copy and Time Walk.  Repeat.  GG, barn.  Not a good thing.

I really don't think this can be an instant.  The discard as it is is not strong enough to warrant instant speed.  Picture this: one card in hand.  End of opponent's turn, play the card (which is This), discarding nothing, bringing back FoF/Gifts and a counter.  um, GG?

The discarding as an additional cost fixes most of these problems.  I don't think even putting the discard at the end really solves it, as then it becomes really quite stupid with madness (ok, before I declare blockers, i'll return Arrogant Wurm and Basking Rootwalla to my hand, i mean, i'll play them from my graveyard). 

-JM

this is totally nitpicking, but you need a current wording post that has something like this:

"Each player sacrifices any number of creatures.  Then, each creature deals damage equal to its power to its controller."

like i said, nitpicking.  But i think this is an "each player" case, rather than an "all players" case.

-JM

I don't mind making this guy a part of a guild, but keep in mind that using the half-and-half symbol does NOT carry the prequisite of the card being a guild card.  One of Mark Rosewater's reasons for using the half-and-half symbol as opposed to a Guild symbol was so that hybrid cards would not be restricted to use in Ravnica and they could be brought back later. 

I love the flavor text, but I'm again not sure we need to make it a guild card.  If we don't, we need a card to take on that flavor text.

-JM

I agree the Goblin Welder wording is entirely unnecessary.

"Search your library for a card with the same type as target card in your graveyard, reveal it, and put it into your graveyard.  Then, shuffle the targetted card into your library."

I like it better as a tutor at 3 CMC, but if we want a graveyard tutoring card, then that's what it will be.

I'm really not at all sure why we have a hole that needs to be filled by this, tho.  A tutor seems much more useful, and this is actually a pretty cool tutor.  As a 3 CMC sorcery, this is fine as a tutor I think.

-JM

i thought the point of it was that it screwed the opponent's spells.  I don't mind at all that it could seriously screw the opponent if you made it indestructible.  This guy is not a one-time Fork magnet.  He's quite a bit cooler with the possibility that they'd have to worry about his ability constantly while he's in play.

also, the way you have it worded currently, the opponent would control the copy but you would choose the targets.  Rather strange.

-JM