Card/Deck Single Card Spotlight

[Grillo_Parlante]

TC is insane, and requires no specialized building (same with dtt). There is no meaningful cost, and they were design mistakes.

You just play magic naturally, and than at a certain point get to draw 3 while still having the mana up to cast the spells you draw. It grants both a massive CA swing and massive tempo swing.

I can come up with ancitodal situations where sol ring is bad too, that dosen't change how high the floor is nor the atmospheric ceiling.

 

[Eric Chan]

Yeah, like I said some time ago, I think the median Treasure Cruise was cast for in my cube, and the mean for . It was especially brutal in UR tempo decks, which are already playing a lot of cheap cantrips and burn spells, not to mention disposable creatures and fetch lands. The blue tempo decks were getting so obviously head and shoulders above the other archetypes that Treasure Cruise was the natural cut.

Strangely enough (or not?), Dig Through Time hasn't felt quite as overbearing, and doesn't represent nearly the same get-out-of-jail-free possibilities that Treasure Cruise does. I'm still trying to understand why there's been a discrepancy in power level between the two similar spells, but Dig has merely been Very Good in the cube and not Certifiably Insane, so it's getting a pass for the time being.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

TC is insane, and requires no specialized building (same with dtt). There is no meaningful cost, and they were design mistakes.

You just play magic naturally, and than at a certain point get to draw 3 while still having the mana up to cast the spells you draw. It grants both a massive CA swing and massive tempo swing.

I can come up with ancitodal situations where sol ring is bad too, that dosen't change how high the floor is nor the atmospheric ceiling.

I don't necessarily agree. They were broken in Vintage and Legacy, format-warping in Modern, and good but not great in Standard. Cards behave differently in different environments, and depending on the composition of your cube, TC and DTT can behave as they did in Vintage (which can be a good thing, mind you, if you are aiming for a power cube), as they did in Modern (in which case you probably should cut it), or as they did in Standard, in which case they are excellent includes that reward good deckbuilding / certain archetypes. I personally cube DTT (but not TC), and though I am filled with a feeling of dread whenever it is cast against me, I have, in fact, beaten it multiple times (and yes, lost to it to).

Edit: Looking at Eric's post, it might also be that DTT is simply a bit less insane than TC? DTT is harder and more expensive to cast ( vs. , and draws one less card. The card quality will be better, but apparently 3 random cards > 2 less random cards?

 

[Eric Chan]

The main thing was that, while Treasure Cruise was often the best card in any given U/x tempo deck, Dig Through Time didn't pack nearly the same punch. The best cube U/x aggressive decks a) ran a very low curve with multiple cheap cantrips, b) had great fixing to support their splash, and c) therefore could get away with a low land count, much like their constructed counterparts (we're talking 15 lands here). This meant that, even going into the "late game", these decks were often running on only three to four lands, and were happy to have card quantity over card quality: A straight refill of both lands and spells is valuable when you have more gas than mana to play it. Also, the cost of Dig is much harsher on a low land count, because it means that you're more than likely to tap all your available blue mana to play it, and can't keep 'going off' on the same turn afterwards.

On the other hand, blue control decks are more than happy to play either Cruise or Dig, whatever they happen to draft. In these decks, Dig is clearly the superior choice, but no blue control drafter is going to turn down Cruise, either, if they can't get their grubby mitts on a Dig. Perhaps it's just that blue control isn't a top tier archetype in my own list, and needs a bit of a boost, which Dig is more than happy to provide; but first picking a Dig Through Time, which I've done on multiple occasions, sends you down a narrower route than an early Cruise pick, without as much guaranteed payoff. I'll concede this could be more a function of my environment than of the card's intrinsic power level, and that, if one day blue control becomes the best archetype here, Dig may well prove to be oppressive, too.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

I don't necessarily agree. They were broken in Vintage and Legacy, format-warping in Modern, and good but not great in Standard. Cards behave differently in different environments, and depending on the composition of your cube, TC and DTT can behave as they did in Vintage (which can be a good thing, mind you, if you are aiming for a power cube), as they did in Modern (in which case you probably should cut it), or as they did in Standard, in which case they are excellent includes that reward good deckbuilding / certain archetypes. I personally cube DTT (but not TC), and though I am filled with a feeling of dread whenever it is cast against me, I have, in fact, beaten it multiple times (and yes, lost to it to).

Edit: Looking at Eric's post, it might also be that DTT is simply a bit less insane than TC? DTT is harder and more expensive to cast ( vs. , and draws one less card. The card quality will be better, but apparently 3 random cards > 2 less random cards?

It was also broken in pauper too. I don't think the existence of one format, where neither card was format wreaking, is convincing evidence that the these cards weren't design mistakes, however

If someone wants to tell me that TC or DTT is fair in their format, I'll listen, but I think at this point its reasonable that the default presumption be that they are broken cards, and that the burden should be on the individual to present why they are fair in their specific format. This is much the same standard I would apply to balance, which is another inherently broken card, which format specific variables can render feeling more fair.

One other glaring issue with both TC and DTT is that they are strong first picks in a color that already trends to having a disproportionate percentage of a a cube's strong first and second picks.

 

[ahadabans]

This is what I love about Magic. It's why I keep playing it. 4 very different views on the same card by people who all design cubes and have played enough Magic to know what they are talking about.

So why the wide variances of opinion?

I think it boils down to the fact that Magic is a complicated game (for one). And the fact that context is really a huge part of card evaluation. My 2 cents is that the power of Treasure Cruise boils down to two basic factors:

1. How easy is it to obtain meaningful CA in your meta?

In other words, assuming you can get 3 cards for U (one-time effect). Is that a broken play later in the game in your environment? Again, you only get that by casting other spells that get cards in your graveyard. Fetchlands certainly help, but unless you are getting 6+ of them during the draft (how are you doing that?), are we really being honest about how much they are helping to make TC cost U?

2. What are you drawing into?

Someone mentioned playing TC for U and then dropping Frost Titan. This is a subject near and dear to my heart as it's something I've been arguing for awhile. What type of top end creatures are you playing in your cube? Titans are game winning cards that help stabilize while also acting as win conditions. They drastically alter the power of midrange/control strategies since they are very good at undoing early game board position. If you a instead drawing into Draining Whelk, well who gives a damn if you are staring down three creatures that will go lethal next turn if you don't remove them?

 

[vennythekid]

One other glaring issue with both TC and DTT is that they are strong first picks in a color that already trends to having a disproportionate percentage of a a cube's strong first and second picks.

This was ultimately what drove these cards out of my cube, was that they were power picks in a meta where Blue already had a plethora of strong power picks.

2. What are you drawing into?

Someone mentioned playing TC for U and then dropping Frost Titan. This is a subject near and dear to my heart as it's something I've been arguing for awhile. What type of top end creatures are you playing in your cube? Titans are game winning cards that help stabilize while also acting as win conditions. They drastically alter the power of midrange/control strategies since they are very good and undoing early game board position.

My mentioning of Frost Titan was not the point of what I had to say. What I'm saying is that out of anything you can play with , TC into mana's worth of play is likely going to be game over for the opposing player. Frost Titan does it quickly, but any planeswalker, wrath, removal, board presence, magic card etc. will also put the close on a game. It simply doesn't matter what you're doing as long as you're doing something with the mana, and you'll generally be far enough ahead to win.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

It was also broken in pauper too. I don't think the existence of one format, where neither card was format wreaking, is convincing evidence that the these cards weren't design mistakes, however

If someone wants to tell me that TC or DTT is fair in their format, I'll listen, but I think at this point its reasonable that the default presumption be that they are broken cards, and that the burden should be on the individual to present why they are fair in their specific format. This is much the same standard I would apply to balance, which is another inherently broken card, which format specific variables can render feeling more fair.

One other glaring issue with both TC and DTT is that they are strong first picks in a color that already trends to having a disproportionate percentage of a a cube's strong first and second picks.

No matter the power level of a cube, there will always be cards that have first pick written all over them respective to the power level of the environment they are picked in. Of course it is undesirable to have a disproportionate amount of first picks in one color, but that is not something to hold against any one card, it just means you have to rebalance the strength of your colors. In other words, it is not a glaring issue with TC and DTT that they are strong first picks, but a person's cube could have a glaring issue with the ratio of strong first picks in respect to the other colors. In fact, I had this issue with black, where 8 of the 10 most picked cards on CubeTutor were black cards (including The Gitrog Monster and Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver).

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

I think it does count against dtt and tc in this context, because blue card draw is so excellent. There are tons of very strong blue card draw spells that get overshadowed. The easiest way to bring blue down to earth without gutting the color is to tap into that depth of draw and cantrips.

 

[ahadabans]

What I'm saying is that out of anything you can play with , TC into mana's worth of play is likely going to be game over for the opposing player. Frost Titan does it quickly, but any planeswalker, wrath, removal, board presence, magic card etc. will also put the close on a game. It simply doesn't matter what you're doing as long as you're doing something with the mana, and you'll generally be far enough ahead to win.

This is what I'm fundamentally arguing against though. The card (or cards) you play don't matter. Why does 6 mana mean game over for aggressive strategies? When did that become a design principle of MTG? It's simply not part of the original game. This is a new concept that has been introduced to the game in the last 8 or 9 years.

Turns 2-5 should really determine the winner of most games. IMO at least. If you are the beatdown and you have established a really strong board presence and gotten into a winning position, there should be no card or combination of cards that cost 6 mana which should invalidate what happened on T2-T5.

I realize that many (most?) cube environments this simply isn't true, but that is the very crux of my argument.

I've played games where my opponent simply got a whole lot of momentum on me that by the time I got to that TC for U, it could have read "draw your entire library" and I still probably would have lost. That's an extreme scenario of course. Often times I have a card or two in my deck that could turn the tides, but this is where the 7 card dig on DTT is better than getting just 3 cards off the top from TC. And you pay for that with UU versus U.

Both DTT and TC are very powerful cards. Not arguing against that. They are also cards that very often pull me into blue. I can understand not wanting that effect in your cube too though.

 

[vennythekid]

This is what I'm fundamentally arguing against though. The card (or cards) you play don't matter. Why does 6 mana mean game over for aggressive strategies? When did that become a design principle of MTG? It's simply not part of the original game. This is a new concept that has been introduced to the game in the last 8 or 9 years.

It's not that 6 mana is game over, its that 6 extra mana (from Delve), in conjunction with 3 extra cards (Again, from TC) is game over for opposing decks, assuming that card quality on average is roughly the same for the environment. This is true for any deck, not just aggressive decks, I'm not sure where you got that from.

A control deck who can leave open 6 mana for defense/counters while refilling is absurdly advantaged over a control deck that has to tap out to cast a Sphinx's Rev/Opportunity/etc. or whatever. A midrange deck that can draw 3 then drop a drawn fatty/walker is advantaged over his counterpart who can only play FoF/Harmonize and a 3-mana spell. An aggressive deck who can draw 3 then kill with a haste guy + burn spell in the same turn is advantaged over his counterpart who has wait longer for Chandra or Outpost Siege to draw the same amount of cards. A tempo deck brings late-game draw spells to the midgame, whilst deploying/countering more cheap threats.

 

[ahadabans]

I just think you are overstating the power of the card is all. Draw 3 is a great effect. But most 3+ mana cards are already giving you two effects for the price of one . By comparison, that's one card off from TC, and really it's less than that since one of the three cards you draw with TC is going to be a land you probably don't need.

So TC is really trading U and a card for two business spells you still need to cast to get anything out of. Flametongue Kavu costs more, but you get a beefy attacker in play and 4 damage to a creature - neither effect you had to additionally cast.

On T2, either effect is inappropriate. On T6? Not nearly as big a deal. So unless you are consistently ripping TC for U on T2-3, I really think you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill here.

 

[vennythekid]

I just think you are overstating the power of the card is all. Draw 3 is a great effect. But most 3+ mana cards are already giving you two effects for the price of one . By comparison, that's one card off from TC, and really it's less than that since one of the three cards you draw with TC is going to be a land you probably don't need.

So TC is really trading U and a card for two business spells you still need to cast to get anything out of. Flametongue Kavu costs more, but you get a beefy attacker in play and 4 damage to a creature - neither effect you had to additionally cast.

On T2, either effect is inappropriate. On T6? Not nearly as big a deal. So unless you are consistently ripping TC for U on T2-3, I really think you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill here.

On turn 6, you're never able to rip a FTK and a second business spell. On turn 6, you will always be able to rip TC and a second business spell. You get more done in less time. Which is a fundamental strength of a Magic card. Whether you think this particular iteration of "getting more done in less time" is too strong, well, that's up to you, and your environment.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

This is what I'm fundamentally arguing against though. The card (or cards) you play don't matter. Why does 6 mana mean game over for aggressive strategies? When did that become a design principle of MTG? It's simply not part of the original game. This is a new concept that has been introduced to the game in the last 8 or 9 years.

Turns 2-5 should really determine the winner of most games. IMO at least. If you are the beatdown and you have established a really strong board presence and gotten into a winning position, there should be no card or combination of cards that cost 6 mana which should invalidate what happened on T2-T5.

I realize that many (most?) cube environments this simply isn't true, but that is the very crux of my argument.

I've played games where my opponent simply got a whole lot of momentum on me that by the time I got to that TC for U, it could have read "draw your entire library" and I still probably would have lost. That's an extreme scenario of course. Often times I have a card or two in my deck that could turn the tides, but this is where the 7 card dig on DTT is better than getting just 3 cards off the top from TC. And you pay for that with UU versus U.

Both DTT and TC are very powerful cards. Not arguing against that. They are also cards that very often pull me into blue. I can understand not wanting that effect in your cube too though.

err...I don't know if thats ever really been true. At the least I think its a lot more nuanced than focusing on 6 mana ETB monsters or planeswalkers. TC would be just as broken in 1994 as it is today, for the exact same reasons: it puts you ahead on both card advantage and tempo. That was always the strength of the card: the way it snowballed card advantage into board position, because you could cast the cards you found the turn you found them. That was the same power behind ancestral recall, and being slightly more constricted in the way you can leverage it, turns out, does little to make it less awesome.

TC is kind of an interesting card in the sense it provides some good lessons in pitfalls of card design, as well as card evaluation. We know from the modern pro tour debacle that WOTC's testing is a bit inbred, in the sense that it focuses exclusively on standard, presuming that the natural high power of eternal formats will correct for any mistakes they make.

They were spectacularly wrong with both TC and DTT, as evidenced by the fact that those cards were hideously broken in literally every other single constructed format they were legal in, excepting for the one they were explicitly designed to be balanced for, and that reality should hang over the decision to run either card.

I don't want to come across as dog piling, but I feel that the defense of TC you are providing is almost satirical; as probably a very similar conversation occurred at some point during TC's development cycle, when people began to question whether it might be OP in eternal formats.

I also think your evaluation of the card is almost certainly off, even within the context of your own format.

People were rather slow to warm to it in pauper as well, making similar arguments, starting it out in U/R or UB decks designed to generate gy density, and it slowly crept into mono U delver, maybe supported by thought scours, before people realized that it was just a good stuff card, that it needed no support, and that you were insane not to just run straight mono U delver with four copies. Gush, a free draw spell, couldn't compete in the tempo deck for space, and never in its history could justify the full four slots that TC did easily with no support. Think about that.

That was a conclusion that took hundreds of people several months to slowly arrive at in a competitive setting. When I see a lone cube designer defending the card, it seems more probable to me that this is more the result of limited reps with the card due to how hard it is to format test (which lets admit, is a huge problem in terms of balancing we all face: we don't have dedicated test groups), and casual playgroups that will tolerate all sorts of format inbalance as long as they are having fun.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

I think it does count against dtt and tc in this context, because blue card draw is so excellent. There are tons of very strong blue card draw spells that get overshadowed. The easiest way to bring blue down to earth without gutting the color is to tap into that depth of draw and cantrips.

I'm sorry, but I don't see why what you're saying is a strike against the inherent fairness (if indeed they are fair, which is indeed debatable) of DTT and TC (which is what prompted this discussion). Given that someone would want to lower the power level of the blue section in their cube, because the color has been overperforming and has too many strong first picks, then sure, DTT and TC are both good options to replace, because there are other good blue draw spells that will adequately fill the card advantage role without being as strong of a first pick. That's still not a strike against DTT and TC in and of itself, because it's not the cards themselves that are the problem, but rather the overpopulation of strong first picks in a color. This can happen in any color, but blue and black are more prone to it in my experience. Anyway, this is all semantics, I think we can agree that DTT and TC are broken in certain environments, and cool in others, even if we disagree about whether that constitutes a design mistake. In my opinion I'ld rather have them push the envelope to try out new and exciting designs every now and then, than be conservative all the time, fearful of what cards might do in older environments.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

I'm sorry, but I don't see why what you're saying is a strike against the inherent fairness (if indeed they are fair, which is indeed debatable) of DTT and TC (which is what prompted this discussion). Given that someone would want to lower the power level of the blue section in their cube, because the color has been overperforming and has too many strong first picks, then sure, DTT and TC are both good options to replace, because there are other good blue draw spells that will adequately fill the card advantage role without being as strong of a first pick. That's still not a strike against DTT and TC in and of itself, because it's not the cards themselves that are the problem, but rather the overpopulation of strong first picks in a color. This can happen in any color, but blue and black are more prone to it in my experience. Anyway, this is all semantics, I think we can agree that DTT and TC are broken in certain environments, and cool in others, even if we disagree about whether that constitutes a design mistake. In my opinion I'ld rather have them push the envelope to try out new and exciting designs every now and then, than be conservative all the time, fearful of what cards might do in older environments.

Thats because its not a point that goes to the inherent fairness of either card, its an ancillary color balance concern.

 

[ahadabans]

On turn 6, you're never able to rip a FTK and a second business spell. On turn 6, you will always be able to rip TC and a second business spell. You get more done in less time. Which is a fundamental strength of a Magic card. Whether you think this particular iteration of "getting more done in less time" is too strong, well, that's up to you, and your environment.

But just casting TC and drawing cards accomplishes nothing in and of itself. If you can't cast a business spell after you draw it's a pretty weak sauce play for T6. Tidings draws you 4 cards for 5 mana and it's in zero cubes. Peasant cubes don't even run it (as far as I'm aware).

FTK impacts the board in a big way. You don't need a second business spell.

 

[ahadabans]

I don't want to come across as dog piling

You're good. Don't even sweat that. I enjoy these types of exchanges honestly. I learn a lot about my own limitations with the game, among other things. And it all helps me make my cube better in the end.

, but I feel that the defense of TC you are providing is almost satirical; as probably a very similar conversation occurred at some point during TC's development cycle, when people began to question whether it might be OP in eternal formats.

I also think your evaluation of the card is almost certainly off, even within the context of your own format.

Certainly possible. I'll even go as far as saying probable. I don't think I've yet made effective decks that exploited TC. There's certainly a higher ceiling to the card than I've experienced. At the same time, I haven't seen anyone draft a deck that breaks it so I don't see the harm right now.

People were rather slow to warm to it in pauper as well, making similar arguments, starting it out in U/R or UB decks designed to generate gy density, and it slowly crept into mono U delver, maybe supported by thought scours, before people realized that it was just a good stuff card, that it needed no support, and that you were insane not to just run straight mono U delver with four copies. Gush, a free draw spell, couldn't compete in the tempo deck for space, and never in its history could justify the full four slots that TC did easily with no support. Think about that.

My 2 cents is there's a large power gap between any kind of rare based cube (even lower powered ones) and pauper/peasant. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like tempo means a lot more in pauper/peasant than it does in a rare cube. And that has to do with rares themselves. As a general rule, they are not role-player type cards. You don't drop a rare building onto a strategy so much as you drop a rare to BE the strategy. They break the game. That's why they are rare.

So in pauper/peasant environments (or similar - penny pincher is probably in this realm), the only way to win a game is to get an advantage and keep it over a period of time while you churn some sort of slow win condition. The more powered your cube, the more this idea goes out the window. Single cards can win games out of nowhere, often times from losing positions. And it's often matchup dependent and game state dependent (i.e. at the mercy of RNG). Here, tutors are often much better than raw draw cards (where DTT >> TC). Raw CA I think is better in lower powered environments, where a single card simply can't cancel 3 turns of momentum.

When I see a lone cube designer defending the card, it seems more probable to me that this is more the result of limited reps with the card due to how hard it is to format test (which lets admit, is a huge problem in terms of balancing we all face: we don't have dedicated test groups), and casual playgroups that will tolerate all sorts of format inbalance as long as they are having fun.

Couldn't agree more on this one. There is an entire team of people whose full time job is to design a block environment and that is probably a failure more times than it is a success. Us lonely cube designers have it a little easier since we can learn from those experiences and are using a known card pool to do our design with. Still, it's a nearly impossible task to perfectly balance a cube. I've given up really trying to do that.

 

[sigh]

I love this discussion every time it comes back this forum.

First off, Treasure Cruise is definitely the stronger spell of the two overall, imo. UU matters an amazing amount the time, and 3 cards can matter much more than 2 a decent percentage of the time. Also, drawing lands is usually just as strong as not, because control specifically thrives on hitting land drops more than an opponent, thus getting ahead on mana.

That aside they are both very strong. Even if you can only cheaply cast them only in the late game, U and UU is ludicrously cheap for draw spells of the caliber we are talking about. I've often thought that Treasure Cruise should've been a draw 2, which has a lower ceiling by nature.

In my mind Dig Through Time is fair, fun, and cool enough to consider inclusion in far more cubes than TC. It does a lot of things I like:

1. Humbly enables some more "combo" oriented decks. Its no tutor, but can help increase the consistency of decks with some weird Johnny plan in mind. I like this point more if the "combo" is made up of complex moving pieces (ie not just 2 card combos).
2. Is skill-testing. What two pieces do I really need? When do I take the land and have it be correct? What's my back-up picks now that I've whiffed on what I wished for? Compare to picking the top three cards off the top of your deck.
3. Doesn't increase your hand size too much. If your format isn't full of silver bullets, it will self-limit the advantage you gain. This is something I noticed during my months of playing Dig decks in standard.
4. That being said, I like what ahadabans is saying about dtt above. If your format does have very swingy spells, it can be a little much.

Treasure Cruise is already out of my cube, for Deep Analysis (at the moment). I'm definitely on board with exploring the depths that are U card draw. Honestly, I'm seriously considering Tidings.... 4 cards is a lot. If not that, maybe mind spring? So many cool options to consider

 

[Dom Harvey]

just play another Fact or Fiction
just play another Fact or Fiction
just play another Fact or Fiction
just play another Fact or Fiction
just play another Fact or Fiction
just play another Fact or Fiction
just play another Fact or Fiction
just play another Fact or Fiction
just play another Fact or Fiction

 

[Suicufnoc]

What cards are too first-pickable?

I'm pretty sure Flametongue is the first pick of any pack he's in in my cube, though certainly not the most powerful card in the cube. Of course, there's always going to be a first pick card in the cube.

 

[Suicufnoc]

just play another Fact or Fiction
just play another Fact or Fiction
just play another Fact or Fiction
just play another Fact or Fiction
just play another Fact or Fiction
just play another Fact or Fiction
just play another Fact or Fiction
just play another Fact or Fiction
just play another Fact or Fiction

 

[ahadabans]

I've flip flopped a lot on DTT vs TC. And I still think it's meta dependent. But I like the arguments you are making for DTT (Sigh), so I'm wondering if that is what I should be running. The UU is occasionally a buzzkill though as I've had that sitting in my hand and not had the second island. Mostly mana greed on my part though.

I really like the suite of card draw that Grillo has posted in this thread I think (if not this one, other recent ones). One I'm particularly interested in exploring is Careful Consideration. I like that it has an instant mode. I like that it digs 4 deep. I like that it interacts with the graveyard, which I pretty much don't think you can ever have enough of.

Problem with Tidings is you take an entire turn off to draw cards. Too many games I feel like that is just too large a cost as a T5 play. Even Future Sight is a borderline win-more card. It's undeniably insane over time, but can you just go MIA on T5 to play it? And if you are that ahead on the board to where you can do that, why not put more pressure (or encourage that mindset)?

I like the Jonny/durdle and I also think it's healthy to discourage some of the more obnoxious flavors of that as well. So I'm conflicted honestly.

 

[ahadabans]

Flametongue Kavu
What cards are too first-pickable?
Kitchen FinksTreasure CruiseHangarback Walker
I'm pretty sure Flametongue is the first pick of any pack he's in in my cube, though certainly not the most powerful card in the cube. Of course, there's always going to be a first pick card in the cube.

How bad is this though? We want to have some obvious first picks right? And does FTK or Finks win games by themselves? Or are they just general good stuff cards and that's why they tend to be such good first picks?

Asking questions to generate more discussion only. I don't think these are rhetorical questions.

 

[Suicufnoc]

How bad is this though? We want to have some obvious first picks right? And does FTK or Finks win games by themselves? Or are they just general good stuff cards and that's why they tend to be such good first picks?

Asking questions to generate more discussion only. I don't think these are rhetorical questions.

Oh I forgot to say that I think the goal should be that your first picks aren't the most powerful cards in the cube. Treasure Cruise is pushing that limit, in my opinion. Hangarback Walker isn't(though some people don't like playing with it), but its still very first pickable on the basis of fitting in lots of decks.

I don't like free broken cards going to whoever opens them(Black Lotus).