Source

• added rarity

Apparently a lot of people don't think this is borderline insane.

It's probably underpriced for its best possible result. Draw a card, and you may put a land into play.

But it does have that random element to it, and so can't be relied upon to trigger landfall.

Still; it's a 1-cost cantrip. Stick 4 in your deck, and you've kinda-sorta got a 56-card deck; assuming you have spare mana sometimes.

Would you think a 1-drop Elf or Bird, or Wild Growth is fair? Because I could see someone making the argument that casting this wastes an opportunity for a 'guaranteed' 3 mana on round 2. If you don't think those cards are fair, though, then I don't think I'd consider this fair either.

It feels like 'the Stone Rain problem' to me. Wizards doesn't want to print land destruction at less than 4 mana, but they still act as if Stone Rain could theoretically exist, and price all 4 mana land destruction spells accordingly. If 1-cost Elf/Bird isn't fair, then no mana accel for one is fair, and it's probably best to just make 2-cost accel with some sort of bonus.

Alternative thought: There's quite an element of randomness in this card. I could see some players arguing that a player could win or lose a game based on a 'coin flip': whether or not land is on top of your library when you cast this on turn one. Players, especially Spikes, don't like it when they lose games due to factors that aren't in their control.

This card feels like Timmy would like it more than Spike. I'd probably cost it appropriately.