Something we haven't seen before

[Matt]

Name
3
Artifact Creature
2/2
0: Put ~this~ in your graveyard.  Play this ability only if ~this~  is in your library.

I can see this having lots of uses, but the majority of those uses are black. Living Death, Ashen Ghoul/Krovikan Horror/Nether Shadow, Mortivore/Lhurgoyf, Necratog, Roar of Reclamation...uh, Songs of the Damned...theoretically even Psychatog and Goblin Welder could all make use of this. It's also good for threshold-enabling, which I think is balanced by having to play with Shatter-able Gray Ogres.

It also can keep Dragon combo from randomly drawing the game, though it doesn't keep them from winning.

Should this be a golem or gnome? That would add Patriarch's Bidding to the list of cards this can use.

[Matt]

Current wording:


Prehistoric Golem
3
Artifact Creature -- Golem
2/2
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.
After waiting thousands of years for archeologists, the golem finally got bored and dug itself up.

[Ephraim]

Prehistoric Golem

Flavour Text: After waiting thousands of years for archeologists, the golem finally got bored and dug itself up.

[Matt]

Hahahahahaha, I like that. Sweet.

[Jebus]

I'm not touching this with a 50ft pole.

[Matt]

Yeah, I know. Still, it's totally obvious what you're supposed to do. It's just that the rules don't really cover playing abilities on cards you can't see (you CAN play abilities on cards that aren't revealed to all players though - most notably ESG).

I think in this case we can make an exception to the general directive that we don't make cards that require rulebook changes, because a) EVERYONE can figure out how this is supposed to work, and b) I REALLY don't think we need to worry about Wizards writing something new in the rulebook that would directly contradict this card.

[Jebus]

Well, at least put something like "reveal your library" or "search your library".

I've seen this mechanic come up before on player made cards (and on 1996 World Champion), but it never seems practical as there is so much that can go wrong.

[Ephraim]

You could do what Legends of the Five Rings does. They've got a card that searches itself out of your library and it reads something like this:

Search your Dynasty Deck (Library) for ~this~ and put it into play, then shuffle your Dynasty Deck. If you don't find a copy of ~this~, you lose the game.

I don't know if it works with the existing rules, since if you don't find a copy of it, there's no copy present to make you lose. If it doesn't have such a clause, then this becomes a free shuffle effect (maybe even if you don't actually have a copy of it in your library).

[Tenebrozo]

How about wording it so you can only use the ability when you are already shuffling (fetchlands) or looking at your library (tutor)?

[Matt]

Wow, that would make it an absolutely terrible card.

[rvs]

I'm with Jebus on this one. It's shaky.

[walkingdude]

I think in cases where the standard English is unmistakably clear it might be legit to go with a card that doesn’t technically work in the rules.

Besides, Woc knowingly makes cards that don’t work with the rules and relies on judges enforce the sprit of the cards under the unsportsmanlike conduct clause. (every card with a random discard as part of its cost). We can do the same.

[Jebus]

Besides, Woc knowingly makes cards that don’t work with the rules and relies on judges enforce the sprit of the cards under the unsportsmanlike conduct clause. (every card with a random discard as part of its cost). We can do the same.

I fail to see your conclusion that random discards are not covered by the rules of the game.

Most WotC cards work with the rules.  Those that don't are normally very clear about what they are trying to do.

[walkingdude]

The way costs work, if you start to play the cost of an ability but do not complete play the cost the game backs up and you un pay the cost. This led to the loophole that you could start to play a card like acceptable losses by discarding, then if you discarded a card that you didn’t want to discard you declined to pay the mana cost and the game backed up to before the discard. WoC dealt with this by saying that anyone who exploited this loophole to turn the random discard into choose and discard would be given a warning for unsportsmanlike conduct. It’s possible they have since fixed this, but they certainly printed cards with random discard as part of the cost while this loophole existed knowing the cards didn’t work.

[Jebus]

The way costs work, if you start to play the cost of an ability but do not complete play the cost the game backs up and you un pay the cost. This led to the loophole that you could start to play a card like acceptable losses by discarding, then if you discarded a card that you didn’t want to discard you declined to pay the mana cost and the game backed up to before the discard. WoC dealt with this by saying that anyone who exploited this loophole to turn the random discard into choose and discard would be given a warning for unsportsmanlike conduct. It’s possible they have since fixed this, but they certainly printed cards with random discard as part of the cost while this loophole existed knowing the cards didn’t work.

Well under current rules that doesn't work anyway.  Nothing in the rules allows you to not pay the mana cost once you've started playing the spell, so you must complete the action if you can.

This has been covered quite a bit recently regarding Chromatic Sphere.

[walkingdude]

Glad to know that's been fixed, as of invasion it was still a problem.
http://www.duelists.org/~vorspiel/invasion.html

anyway, the point of that wasn't to debate rules, but to mention a time Woc printed a card they knew at the time didn't work properly but that had a clear english wording that people could tell what it meant.  The used the unsportsmanlike conduct rule to hold people to the intent of the card without (at the time) needing a rules fix.

[Upinthe]

In a sanctioned match, if you just picked up your deck and started looking through it, that would likely earn you a match loss at the very least. That seems really mean if someone tried to use this card and forgot to put the card in their deck or didn't realize they had used all of their copies already. In magic, every effort should be made so honest mistakes don't cost more than a game. Also, with Mindslaver, does than mean I get to look through your library because you might have one of these? This card is just bad news.

[Ephraim]

It's the sort of card that would probably require a minor addendum to the rules. Now, obviously, we can't make such an ammendment, but the modification is simple enough that we can put text on the card that makes such a change intuitive. If the card is too off-the-wall, then it may not make it into the TMD fantasy set. However, I think that it's an interesting enough idea with an easy enough interpretation that adding it to the master list with some sort of game-loss clause for wrongful searching wouldn't necessarily be a terrible idea.

[Matt]

How would a "wrongful searching" clause be useful on the card itself? If it's not in your library, you'd never see the text for it, so even if it said "you lose the game" if it's not in your library you don't lose the game...

This has GOT to be easier to work into the rules than Sharazhad was. At least give me that!

It's not like you can't play cards from your library. Future Sight does it all the time. Playing an ability of a card not in the in-play zone happens all the time. too - Genesis and Glory and Necrosavant and so on. It's not just your graveyard either - Elvish Spirit Guide has an ability that it played from your hand, and cycling is the same way. I think this would need only the slightest modification to the rulebook, if even that. The only issue I can see is that it IS very punishing to get a game loss if you forgot you already used all your Golems, but I'm not too worried, for two reasons: one, in tournament play, you SHOULD be playing your 'A' game, and keeping track of what you have and have not played is part of being a good player; and two, most decks that would use this would probably suck all four out at once. It's far less of a hassle to keep track of than Ashen Ghoul and the other old graveyard-order cards.

[Jacob Orlove]

I really, really like this card. Let's find a way to make it work.

 Here's the problem: you can't just search your library unless a card allows you to, but you have to search your library to find (and thus read) it.

This *might* see some play as a "free" shuffle effect (especially with brainstorm, since you can even put it back and then shuffle). So, we'd need some way to let players look for the card only when it's in their library. Limiting the ability to when you shuffle your library is weak AND lame. There should be a better way. I just can't think of one that actually works.

[Matt]

Here's a thought: Relentless Rats has text that applies even when it's not viewable. Why can't this do the same thing?

[Jacob Orlove]

The rat's text is irrelevant to the game at hand when it's not viewable, though.

[Ephraim]

I don't know if that works. If you're violating the rule that Relentless Rats allows you to vilolate, then you clearly have at least five copies of Relentless Rats available to reference and by the time it  becomes apparent that you're violating the rule, they're in play.

If Prehistoric Golem were to exist, it might be possible for somebody to pick up their deck, say they're searching for  Prehistoric Golem, fail to find it, then shuffle.

The question that would arise then is if a card's rules can apply even if there's not a single copy of the card in your deck.

[Matt]

The rats can have an effect even before the match begins - on a deck check, for instance, or even when builing a deck. It's almost as if the "a deck may have any number" text isn't even part of the card itself, and instead is a part of the comprehensive rules that just happens to be on the card. Almost like reminder text.

[walkingdude]

You could make it reveal your library, then finding it is mandatory and you don't get the free shuffle problem.  it doesn't solve the game loss problem, but I'm willing to let peopel who don't know how many copies of a card they are running lose. : )

[Matt]

Can you explain more specifically how you would word that?

[LordHomerCat]

What about something along the lines of:

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

Wouldn't that make it so that you can't use the ability when you dont have one there (you wouldnt satisfy that first condition), thus eliminating the whole "oh, im gonna look for my golem... guess there isnt one, ill still shuffle tho" problem, the only issue that strikes me is that you NEED to know how many you are playing with, and whether or not you have any left, since you can't use the ability if you don't have the card in your library.

Theres also the revealing method, which can be accomplished two ways.  One is as follows:

"If ~this~ is in your library, you may reveal your library, and put ~this~ from your library into your graveyard.  Then shuffle your library."

This has the problem of showing your whole deck to the other guy, which just isn't something I personally would want to go around doing.  My preferred method would be something along this lines of this:

"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."

This eliminates the problem with searching and not finding (since you can search for something, and not find it, even if its there).  It also eliminates the problem of revealing your whole library (unless of course its the last card =] ).  It seems to me to be the best solution to this wording.  Oh, and you can't use the ability if its not in your library, so revealing and not finding shouldnt be an issue.

[Jacob Orlove]

The problem is, even though you can't use the ability unless it's in your library, what if someone "forgets" and goes to look anyway? That's an irreparable game state.

[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.

[Malhavoc]

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 don't have it in my deck, and I look for it and don't find it, I should lose according to a rule on a card I don't have!  

There was a promo card which used this mechanic:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/arcana/91

But sincerely, it was only a promo, and I don't think its ruling is really good. After all, being banned in every format, it has never received a proper errata.