High-Stakes Wager

[Rabbit Scribe]

High-Stakes Wager
RR
Sorcery
Each player searches his or her library for any 2 cards.  You then put your cards in your hand or remove them from the game.  If you put your cards in your hand, each player does the same.  If you remove your cards from the game, each player does the same.
Mr. Moss, I have to let you go.


Current Version: High-Stakes Wager
RR
Sorcery
Each player searches his or her library for a card and removes it from the game face down.  Then you may have all players reveal and put all cards removed this way into their hands. If you don't, all players reveal all cards removed this way.
Mr. Moss, I have to let you go.[/i]

[Anusien]

Interesting.  The problem I see is that you're not really wagering anything; if it was a coin flip maybe, but I see a whole lot of neat skill-opportunities in this card.  I'd wager it this way: (and do you want cards revealed before the decision is made?)

"Each player searches his or her library for 2 cards and removes them from the game.  Then you may have all players put all cards removed this way into their hands." It seems cleaner that way, but the cards are removed before choosing (which seems to be what you want).

[Slay]

This card seems viciously broken. I could see a really degererate combo deck based around playing this, getting Lotus, Will, and just winning. Or Tinker, Force. Either way, I can think of no scenario in which you'd want to not put the cards in your hand, and if you're on the opposing side, you'd better grab 2x Force, because otherwise you lose that turn.

It seems wayyy too broken.
-Slay

[Rabbit Scribe]

Anusien: I don't want the cards revealed beforehand; your text is perfect- thanks!

Slay: Yes, if this card is played against you, you should probably take 2 Forces or 1 Force and a pitch card if you're already holding a Force.  So he maybe goes Tinker-Jar and you can probably win the counter war.  'S OK.  Of course, it would suck if he removed two unnecessary moxen or search cards or silver bullets against decks you're not playing along with your precious Forces, no?  But then again, it would rawk if you were already holding counters or instant-speed disruption and you could grab maybe one more along with a Yawgmoth's for later.  That's gamblin' for you...

[Marco]

I like the idea, but I think this kind of puts Gifts Ungiven to shame.

[Ephraim]

The cards have to be removed from the game face down. By default cards are removed from the game face up. Although I like this concept, I think that this could certainly allow each player to search for just one card and still be interesting and themely. After all, red does not get much in the way of tutoring. Even the possibility of getting one card (or cheating one's opponent out of one good card) is pretty sweet to red.

[Godder]

I think this works better if the cards are revealed than not. The wager, as I see it, is in both/all players guessing whether or not good cards will be pulled out, rather than nobody having any idea what's going on. I also think it should be one card, rather than two, to avoid monstrous broken-ness, or should cost more.

Edit: Reading what the creator wants would probably helpful... Personally, I still think it's better if you can see the cards, than not, though.

Anusien: I don't want the cards revealed beforehand; your text is perfect- thanks!

This wording works, but is rather complicated:

Each player searches his or her library for 2 cards and removes them from the game face down.  Then you may have all players reveal and put all cards removed this way into their hands. If you don't, all players reveal all cards removed this way.

Alternatively, it could be worded as a 'Choose one' statement, if that's allowed to be done on a card without it being the main clause.

[Rabbit Scribe]

Thanks very kindly for the input, folks!  Ephraim, you’re absolutely right: if the caster can see his opponent’s cards before deciding, it doesn’t work.  Godder, thanks for the fix.  As I see it, the problem with changing it to search for one card is that the effect would be all but negligible.  It would certainly never see play in in Vintage: it’s so much worse than Demonic/ Vampiric Tutor.  I will bow to others' superior wisdom if it seems like the card has a shot at the set, though.  I have no problem bumping the casting cost (especially bumping it to RRR, which would greatly temper the brokenness.)  Another possibility is searching for two (or even three) cards and putting one in the hand and one or two on top of the library or removing all of ‘em from the game.

Edit: In the interest of full disclosure, rumor has it that Burning Wish is red.  Maybe it had better search for only one card after all...

Gamble has been my favorite card for casual play for a long time- it’s got fun synergy with madness, flashback, Oath of Ghouls, Yawgmoth’s Will, or you can just run four of ‘em in combo decks and, well, do some gambling (be sure to run a Final Fortune or two!)  I secretly dream of having Gamble imprinted on an Isochron Scepter to get around the card disadvantage eventually, but that probably crosses the line between casual and stupid.  I really like the idea of forcing one’s opponent into a Gamble: “Have a Demonic Tutor!  Now Lobotomize yourself!�  High-Stakes Wager is sort of like that, but it also includes the possibility of bluffing: one’s opponent is squirming in fear of some degenerate combo and ends up effectively countering Mox Emerald and Brainstorm, and removing his countermagic from the game to boot.