Something we haven't seen before

[combo_dude]

Why not word it:

"If ~this~ is in your library, you may search your library for ~this~. If you do, put it into your graveyard. Then, shuffle your library."

This seems to get around most of the problems - and if someone 'goes to look anyway', then they are breaking the rules of the game by looking at their deck when not instructed to by a spell or effect (since they won't have found it, and therefore can't justify looking at the deck), and thereby lose.

We must remember that according to the rules, a player can decide to not find a card. For example I can use a fetchland and put into play no land (even if there are still lands available in my deck). This rules makes this card's ability really difficult to rule properly. For example, using the above text I quoted, I could search my library for this card, decide to not find it (so I don't put it in my graveyard), and then shuffle. So, in the end, it is a free shuffle. That wouldn't be too bad, but keep in mind that I could even lack this card in my deck! Since I am not forced to show it, my opponent cannot know.

Maybe it would be better:

"If ~this~ is in your library, you may search your library for ~this~. If you do, and you don't find it, you lose the game. If you do, and you find it, put it into your graveyard. Then, shuffle your library."

But then again, if I look for it and don't find it, I should lose according to a rule on a card I don't have!  

I think my point still stands - you aren't losing the game according to a rule on a card, you're losing it because you're looking at cards in your deck without being able to justify it.  It strikes me that if you're going to search for it and not find it, then you lose the game because of breaking a basic rule of the game.

Jebus - am I right, or are you still not touching this with a 50-foot pole? :lol:

[LordHomerCat]

Ya, the whole search and not find thing really seems to be a big problem with this card, in that if you put one in your deck, you can not only justify looking for it, but you can shuffle any time you feel like it then.  What about this wording, so that you have to find it if its there, and if it isnt, well, im thinking that you deserve a game loss then for not knowing your deck well enough?  You are required to find it if you use this ruling, and it will make it abundantly clear if you try to use the ability without having the card.

"If ~this~ is in your library, you may reveal cards from the top of your library until you reveal ~this~. Put ~this~ into your graveyard, and put the revealed cards on top of your library, then shuffle your library."

[Jebus]

Jebus - am I right, or are you still not touching this with a 50-foot pole? :lol:

I found a 51 foot pole.  This will let me say...

I still hate this card.

Any text you put on the card about not finding it is kind of silly, since it won't matter if it has that text, it isn't there.  It would only apply if it were there and you delibrately did not find it.

You'd obviously have a problem in a tournament if you went searching through your deck for no reason.

I think it's fair to say there are some mechanics that should not exist.  This is one of them.

[wonkey_donkey]

Surely you can't go searching through your deck for this and then not find it? The reason you can do it with fetchlands etc is because the ability's costs have been paid and it is shown to exist as an ability, as it were. However, if you don't find the card the ability doesn't exist (or at least not in this game) and hence you can't do it. Maybe I'm oversimplifying things here, but it strikes me as being an ability than can only function if the card is found - otherwise as much as you may be trying to pay for the ability and have it not work, the ability that you are trying to pay for is not there until the card is revealed. I think this is what people have been trying to say in a very roundabout way, but this seems to work just fine if what I'm saying is in fact correct. Is it in fact correct, out of interest?

Tom

[Matt]

If this card were the top card of your library and you had a Future Sight in play, there would be no problems at all. The problem is that you're playing an ability of a card that neither you nor any other player can see.

What about this wording:

Any time you could mulligan and Prehistoric Golem is in your library, you may put it into your graveyard. If you do, shuffle your library.

This should work because you can use it at any time during the mulliganing process; the only concern is that including these gives EVERY deck a way to run 56 cards. So, it should have some kind of drawback to keep them from being an auto-include:

Any time you could mulligan and Prehistoric Golem is in your library, you may put it into your graveyard. If you do, lose 2 life and shuffle your library.

So now if you want to start with four creatures in your graveyard, it'll cost you 8 life. Only decks that truly have a way to use this will include them; it will be too painful for the ability to run a slightly smaller deck.

However, it may be too painful for even a useful deck to run these, but this is the best I can do for now. I would dearly love to find a way to make this card work.


PS: Wacky alternate version, for your viewing pleasure:

Any time you could mulligan and Prehistoric Golem is in your library, you may mulligan. If you do, put Prehistoric Golem into your graveyard.

Though perhaps that would be better worded as:

Any time you could mulligan and Prehistoric Golem is in your library, you may set Prehistoric Golem aside, then mulligan, then put Prehistoric Golem in your graveyard.

I think 'aside' works because there is nowhere else it can go but to the graveyard; there can be no card in play to generate a replacement effect to alter this ability, and no actions can be taken in the middle of resolving this ability.

[Ephraim]

Well, if we're including totally bizarre ways of working with this, you could also say that "Prehistoric Golem doesn't count toward a deck's minimum size requirement." That way, you could have four of them, you'd ditch them to your graveyard while you're mulliganing, then you'd still have a sixty card deck. Decks that have no way to use them wouldn't benefit from it, then. Similarly, you could state something silly like, "Prehistoric Golem begins each game in your graveyard."

In fact, having the card be in your graveyard from the beginning of the game also fixes the idea of it being included as a shuffle effect that can be used from anywhere in the deck. Having it not count toward a deck's minimum size requirement stops it from reducing the effective deck size to 56. And heck, if Relentless Rats can violate one part of rule 100.2, why can't this?

[Jacob Orlove]

Ephraim's suggestions are interesting indeed.

[Matt]

Yeah. I really like the first. Can we swing that?

Any time you could mulligan and Prehistoric Golem is in your library, you may put it into your graveyard. If you do, shuffle your library.
Prehistoric Golem doesn't count toward a deck's minimum size requirement.

It would make it a damn awful limited card, though. Teehee.

[Malhavoc]

Maybe something like this...

 "And the beginning of the game, you can look into your library and show ~this~ to your opponent. If you have done it, anytime during the game, if ~this~ is in your library, you may show the first card of your library until you reveal ~this~, then put ~this~ into your graveyard and reshuffle the shown cards into your library"

Note: if you've more than one copy of ~this~ in your library, you may show multiple copies to use the search ability for each one.

[Ephraim]

I'm only vaguely concerned with the current wording. It is troublesome if the card is in your opening hand. I suppose that can be the drawback of building/using a deck that wishes to have four creatures in its graveyard from the beginning of the game -- the possibility of getting stuck with one of those creatures in your opening hand and having to choose whether to mulligan it back into the deck or to hang onto it.

For myself, if this card actually existed, it'd be a definite inclusion in my Pet Cemetery deck. What? Start with four creatures in my 'yard? Sure -- then my Oversold Cemeteries are active as soon as they hit the table.

[Matt]

See, that's exactly the sort of thing this is supposed to be used for. The decks that want it REALLY want it, the decks that don't, don't care.

[Ephraim]

The problem I see with it, is that it is such a niche card, that it doesn't even matter that it's a 2/2 creature for . All it's ever going to do is fill up the graveyard for whatever reason.l

[PucktheCat]

The problem I see with it, is that it is such a niche card, that it doesn't even matter that it's a 2/2 creature for . All it's ever going to do is fill up the graveyard for whatever reason.l

See also: Squee

[Ephraim]

The problem I see with it, is that it is such a niche card, that it doesn't even matter that it's a 2/2 creature for . All it's ever going to do is fill up the graveyard for whatever reason.l

See also: Squee

Fair enough. That's really my only objection, and since there's clearly another card that has falls into the same trap (and that I don't object to Squee), I can't really protest too vehemently.

[walkingdude]

One way to work this card is have the card say, "if you search your library and randomly shuffle it, then if you reveal this afterwards you don’t lose the game. "

That solves the problem of random shuffling since if you randomly just took a free shuffle and didn’t find this you would lose by the normal floor rules for cheating, but if you snagged this guy it would be ok. Then we don’t have to change the rules at all. We just let people break the rules and put a do not lose clause on the card that would only kick in if they actually reveal the card since if its not revealed it does nothing.

[Upinthe]

Having it not count toward a deck's minimum size requirement stops it from reducing the effective deck size to 56. And heck, if Relentless Rats can violate one part of rule 100.2, why can't this?

If you have one or more in your sideboard and tried to swap it in,  you'd be disqualified.

[waSP]

Why not make it so that you can reveal it in your hand and search your library.  That would require you to draw one, but would fix all the rules problems.

You may reveal and discard ~this~.  If you do, search your library for another card named ~this~ and put it into your graveyard from your library.

That could probably use a little tuning up.  It's worded like Standstill so its not disgustingly abusable with Future Sight.  (Cast 4 Dark Rituals and Cabal Rituals immediately? into a Tendrils!)  What do you think of that?

[Matt]

You may reveal and discard ~this~. If you do, search your library for another card named ~this~ and put it into your graveyard from your library.

Hmm. Yeah, I could kind of see that. If there's no way to work it the way I want, that's a fine substitute.

[Jacob Orlove]

You may reveal and discard ~this~. If you do, search your library for another card named ~this~ and put it into your graveyard from your library.

Hmm. Yeah, I could kind of see that. If there's no way to work it the way I want, that's a fine substitute.

What if the first one just let you bury all 4? Since you lose a card to do it, that's hardly unbalanced.

[walkingdude]

It also needs to tell you to shuffle after you search.

[Matt]

Yes yes, such things can all be ironed out. What I want to know first is, has the current wording salvaged this card enough that I can start a clock? I don't want it to be contingent on drawing one of the four if I don't have to, cause then it's just like Circling Vultures+Welkin Hawk, which isn't as cool.

[Ephraim]

Do you mean that we can later work out how this card works if you have one or more copies in your sideboard? I mean, I'm not sure why you'd ever have this card in your sideboard, rather than in your maindeck, except maybe so you can side it in as a surprise, but if that's an issue, we ought to deal with it.

[Matt]

Well, we already KNOW how it works: if your maindeck is sixty cards and you side one of these in, you get disqualified. If you wanted to side four of these in, you'd have to have a sixty-four card maindeck.

[Ephraim]

Isn't your sideboard part of your "deck" as well? Would having these in your sideboard require you to have a 19-card sideboard?

[Matt]

You people will be the death of me!

121.   Deck-Size Limits
Constructed decks must contain a minimum of sixty cards. There is no maximum deck size; however, you must be able to shuffle your deck with no assistance. If a player wishes to use a sideboard, it must contain exactly fifteen cards.

Looks like a non-issue to me. These DO count towarda a sideboard's size requirement, but not the maindeck's. Which means you would have to have more than sixty maindeck cards to side these in.

Doing so shouldn't get you a DQ, because you would still have the same number of cards after sideboarding as before (64). The text only applies when determining if a given deck has at least sixty cards, amending it to say that you have to have at least sixty non-Prehistoric Golem cards (Golem is still a card).

[Malhavoc]

You may reveal and discard ~this~.  If you do, search your library for another card named ~this~ and put it into your graveyard from your library.

Yes, I like it. It works quite well and it is definitely within the rules. It could make you look for more than one copy, however I think the mechanic is pretty clean and does what the card was meant to do, and does not break fundamental rules.

[Matt]

I'm going to put a twenty-four hour clock on this. The wording DOES work within the rules, and as intended.

There is some question about what happens if you use this ability, then mulligan - whether mulliganing shuffles your graveyard into your library along with your hand. But it's a moot point since you can mulligan all you want and then use the self-bury only when you're satisfied, so in either case it works as intended and can't be abused.

Matt: but i mean, if you drew one
Matt: you could suck the others out
Matt: then mulligan
Jacob 0rlove: right
Matt: and hope not to draw the fourth so you could suck it out too
Matt: but its not like that's abuseable
Jacob 0rlove: right
Matt: and wouldnt require a rewording in any case

[Matt]

Closed and added.[/color]