Returns isn't exactly elegant, but what can be expected from a common Creeping Renaissance?

Very hard to cast. "Up to one" wording would be even messier; but probably make it worth the cost.

This card seems more like a kicker card than a split card to me.

shouldn't be that expensive. compare Decimate which also requires a target for each type.

@vitenka: fairly sure that requires 4 "up to one" and that won,t fit a split card.

@Dude: Don't you know? All keywords are kicker (but even then, kicker is just split cards :p)

@amuseum: I'm fairly sure sure I can't make soemthing quite that efficient on a common. Besides, the Risks half is there to balance it and make it nontrivial. I would probably never make Returns as a lone common.

doesn't matter if it's common. the criteria that you even have one of each type is hard to achieve, unless you have dredge 10 or a mill 10 as a common too. even, then, it's a two card combo that accomplishes very little.

Well, technically, this isn't a common until it says 'up to one'. Otherwise, new players (and many experienced players) will play this card wrong. You could get away with forced targeting at rare, though, since experienced players will then know to look out for forced targeting like on Decimate or Hex.

Is "return up to one target X, target Y, etc." a valid wording? If it's not, it's too long and I need a new effect for it.

"Return up to one target creature, land, enchantment and/or artifact from your graveyard to your hand."

I don't know if that wording 'flies' as far as normal Magic templating is concerned. It is gramatically sketchy. But thinking players should notice that you can't 'and/or' unless there's at least two targets. Maybe I exchanged one confusing line of text for another, though? Not sure.

Alternative: Don't target. Its an annoying solution, but it gets the job done.