Twist of Fate

[RobPro]

Twist of Fate

Instant
Remove Twist of Fate from the game.
Take a card you own from outside of the game and put it into target player's library. That player shuffles his or her library.
Draw a card.
"Sometimes you have to leave things to luck, you know."

I had two thoughts. What if you could throw Gaea's Blessing into your deck if someone was Brainfreezing you to death? Or throw Phage into someone elses deck when they were Oathing?

[oneofchaos]

How would it work when you throw cards into an opponents deck?  They will most likely have different sleeves I would think and this would be a problem.  Also, having other people's cards in my deck is something I wouldn't want to do, because of the chance I'd keep it in my deck and they would present an illegal deck, stealing, etc.

[RobPro]

Those are more the "logistics" of playing the card, they're not really relevant to what the card does itself. I think this is a useful ability that could provide for some interesting board interactions, especially if similar cards get printed to promote these sorts of combinations.

I don't think it's too unreasonable to borrow an opponent's sleeve to slip the card in, but I guess I'm probably wrong?

[Shock Wave]

Those are more the "logistics" of playing the card, they're not really relevant to what the card does itself. I think this is a useful ability that could provide for some interesting board interactions, especially if similar cards get printed to promote these sorts of combinations.

I don't think it's too unreasonable to borrow an opponent's sleeve to slip the card in, but I guess I'm probably wrong?

The logistics of a card are very relevant. Think of why Shahrazad was banned.

[Ephraim]

"Never put a card that one player owns into another player's hand" is a rule that WotC follows pretty zealously.  I think that it has has been violated only once in recent memory and that was on a silver-bordered card.  Putting a card into somebody's deck seems like a worse offense to me.  At its most extreme interpretation, you have to call a judge over every time this card is played so that there is third-party confirmation of the card.  Otherwise, how do you prove ownership of one of your cards in the opponent's deck?  Or, if the card you pick pushes an opponent above four copies of that card, how does the opponent prove that it was your Twist of Fate and not them cheating?

[RobPro]

Suppose the wording was "Take a card you own from outside of the game and put it into your library. Then shuffle your library."

That kind of takes away from what I was trying to get it, which was a card like the opposite of Extract, but it would be easier to use. Would this sort of thing be useful?

Edit: the total wording would be
Twist of Fate

Instant
Remove Twist of Fate from the game.
Take a card you own from outside of the game and put it into your library. Then shuffle your library.
Draw a card.
"Sometimes you have to leave things to luck, you know."

[Apollyon]

They've already done something like that with Research, so it would be fine, mechanics-wise.

[Nydaeli]

What if it was something like:
Twist of Fate
Enchant Player
When Twist of Fate comes into play, name a card and reveal a card you own from outside the game.  If enchanted player would play the named card, instead he or she puts a copy of the revealed card into play.  (He or she pays all associated costs.)

That's pretty terrible templating and it functions a bit differently, but it's a start.  Also, you could probably use Imprint somehow to accomplish this.

[RobPro]

That's interesting, Nydaeli... but not quite what I was getting at. What if it read "Take a card you own from outside of the game and put it into target player's library faceup. That player shuffles his or her library."

[Apollyon]

That still has issues. The problem is that they can then shuffle until it's either on top or bottom. It does get around the whole "identifying which card is yours", that is true. But it ultimately encourages poor shuffling/blatent cheating.

"I'm going to get Ancestral Recall. Shuffle, shuffle, shuffle. Oh, hey! It's on top! How lucky!"

[RobPro]

Because, your opponent doesn't get to cut your deck after you shuffle.

[Apollyon]

The fact that your opponent gets to cut doesn't mean that it's not cheating.

[RobPro]

It's not cheating if the card is face up in the deck, and everyone can see it? Card rules get priority over regular rules. I think that adequately addresses the card ownership concern, and it's a good warning to both players about what is coming up.

I think it'd be interesting to be able to throw a card of your own into an opponent's deck to mess with their combo/engine, or to throw a card into your deck at instant speed that might save you from losing. Is something off with that idea, or at the idea level is it alright?

Everyone seems to be more interested in the logistics of playing the card, which are some valid points, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the card would be effective, or even if this effect might be "overpowered." This isn't really a similar issue to Shahrazad, because this card would take about as much time as a fetchland to play.

[Wagner]

I think it'd be interesting to be able to throw a card of your own into an opponent's deck to mess with their combo/engine, or to throw a card into your deck at instant speed that might save you from losing. Is something off with that idea, or at the idea level is it alright?

I'm wondering, beside adding a creature to an Oath deck of making the other player draw a bad card, how it is supposed to disrupt an opponent?

[Apollyon]

It's not cheating if the card is face-up. It's cheating if they shuffle to put it on top or bottom.

You are correct, though. It does address the card ownership concern.

[Nefarias]

You are correct, though. It does address the card ownership concern.

Not entirely: What happens once someone draws it? You could theoretically add a line along the lines of "If that card would be placed in a player's hand, it stays revealed," or something, but that not only has memory issues, it's also clunky as hell, and is further complicated if down the line other cards somehow allowed cards to be face-up in your library.

I think it'd be interesting to be able to throw a card of your own into an opponent's deck to mess with their combo/engine, or to throw a card into your deck at instant speed that might save you from losing. Is something off with that idea, or at the idea level is it alright?

Sure, it's interesting. The concept is neat, and unique, though of questionable utility. I hate seeing people have ideas on here that get shot down because of logistics, and then a year later, have Wizards print something that is functionally identical that works within the rules. It's happened to me before (Before Kamigawa, I had a card with Channel that was shot down due to logistics). That said, I can't think of any way to make this work.

EDIT: Here's the closest I could think of:

Fate Twister
2
Artifact
Imprint - Remove a card in your hand from the game (that card is imprinted on Fate Twister)
When Fate Twister comes into play, name a card that shares a type with the imprinted card. All cards with that name that are in play, hands, graveyards, and libraries are a copy of the imprinted card.

Setting characteristics of cards that aren't in play and copying effects are two of the most complicated abilities in the game, and I'm iffy about putting both on the same card, but it's printable. This also has some side-effects that make it a lot more powerful than your version, for better or worse. For example, you can make any four-of sorcery in your deck a Time Walk, and make any four-of (or other bomb) in your opponent's deck something they can't cast. Power issues aside though, I think that Fate Twister is printable from a rules and logistics standpoint.

[RobPro]

I think it'd be interesting to be able to throw a card of your own into an opponent's deck to mess with their combo/engine, or to throw a card into your deck at instant speed that might save you from losing. Is something off with that idea, or at the idea level is it alright?

I'm wondering, beside adding a creature to an Oath deck of making the other player draw a bad card, how it is supposed to disrupt an opponent?

Add Gaea's Blessing to Ichorid? As Wizards prints more cards/mechanics that directly impact library manipulation, i.e. dredge, a card like this would become more effective, likewise with cards that trigger when they are placed directly from a library to somewhere.

I think having the card faceup in a library would more or less negate a need to put it in the same sleeves as your opponents deck, so using a clear sleeve (which I don't think get used too often at tournaments, but you could have some firetruck red and shiny purple ready to go) would more or less always allow you to identify the card.

I don't really see interacting with other faceup cards in the library as a problem, unless Wizards decides to keyword some abilities/special rules for faceup cards in the deck, but then we get into a a more tangential discussion.

[Toad]

Because, your opponent doesn't get to cut your deck after you shuffle.

Your opponent has to shuffle your deck, and after this you are allowed to perform a single cut on it. Pretty easy to cut right on the Ancestral Recall.