Ask him for a small loan of a million dollars . <| sep |> The current one isn ' t . First one was though . <| sep |> Thanks I just spent a whole 45 minutes watching cock fights . For some reason the link didn ' t work so I googled it and I wasn ' t aware that my people used razors in cock fights . <| sep |> Thanks . I ' ve been refreshing this page and target since I missed all the others . Just got myself a black one . <| sep |> Quite late to the party , but I was wondering what your major sources of inspiration for The Ables were ? Great book , by the way . I think I ' ll reread it tomorrow . <| sep |> I say the card isn ' t good when you don ' t have 7 mana . You say that doesn ' t matter because you never pay retail for cards in cube . I say if you aren ' t paying retail , something else is broken . You say that isn ' t relevant to the discussion . If you are evaluating a card , you absolutely should weight difference scenarios it will be played in by the likelihood of that scenario taking place . I understand your point that if you can play it in all the scenarios you mention , then it ' s a powerful play , and I agree . My point is that mana cost is the game ' s built in tool to limit when you can play cards . I don ' t think the difference between HQ and the other cards is that great , and my point is if you are breaking the rule of the game that you pay mana for cards , then there ' s a ton of broken stuff , of which playing a HQ is about par for the course . But I would even concede that HQ might be the best thing you can do for 7 mana . Although I think that you overestimate how easy it is to play , and thus how powerful it is in games , let ' s say that it is the best 7 mana card . Your point , as I understand it and I might be wrong , is that if it ' s the best card to play at any point in the game , you will play it if you can , which reduces decisions , and reducing decisions is bad design . Maybe I have your argument wrong , hopefully you will correct me if I do , but if I understand , I ' m not sure I agree . I do think increasing meaningful decisions can be good . However , I don ' t think that ' s the goal of game design . The point of games is to be fun . Decisions may help a game be fun , but sometimes reducing decisions increases fun . Cards like HQ or Wurmcoil Engine are good firstpicks . Not necessarily slam dunks in the way Sol Ring would be , but solid choices . They help push players in a direction in the draft and give them a plan . I think having some super powerful cards focuses players ' plans and make the game feel higher stakes . I think it ' s key that game design increases meaningful choices . Having clear game plans and strategies adds meaning to choices . Another way to think about it is that every story needs a villain . Umezawa ' s Jitte beats you almost every time , but that time you saw it game 1 , and then played around it in games 2 and 3 is sweet . You need powerful cards like HQ that , in fact , win most games in which they are cast to be good villains .