Abusing the Powder (and BFD)

[Methuselahn]

There is a card that was printed in the Mirrodin set that I consider to be overlooked by mostly all of the Vintage community.  This card is Serum Powder.  Yes, at first sight, this card looks like ass.  Here it is:

Serum Powder
3cc Artifact
T: Add 1 to your mana pool.
Any time you could mulligan and Serum Powder is in your hand, you may remove your hand from the game, then draw that many cards.  (You can do this in addition to taking mulligans.)

There are many reasons to not play this card.  These reasons are quite convincing.  It's turn-0 ability is moot after the game has begun.  Three mana for a vulnerable artifact that only taps for one colorless colored mana is bad.  Often, arguments proclaim that it is just like taking a mulligan by drawing one in your opening hand because you really only have 6 cards + 1 Powder.  This argument tends to fall flat (at least in the decklist below) because of the broken nature of T1 and the multiple alternate uses beyond the card's primary function.  

There are also reasons to play this card.  To really maximize this card you have to fuse it into a deck that can turn the drawbacks into bonuses.  (or at least make par with it.)   The fact that this card can let you see 7 new cards for zero mana while your opponent gets nothing is potentially huge.  JP Meyer has recently toyed with a deck seen in his SCG article "Blood and Iron:.."  As stated, the drawback of Serum Powder is made up by the fact that you can sac it to Ironworks, cast it off Workshop for a colorless colored mana, and use it with Metalworker.  

This brings me to another use for Serum Powder.  Rico Suave's "BFD" brainchild deck is something Team Reflection has been working on.  Ok, I admit, this is also a shameless plug for readers to examine our Titan deck too.  For reference, you can find the early April build here.  An updated list with Powder and a tourny report can be found here.  

As Rico will no doubt agree, 'Big Fat Dick' is all about dropping big fat bombs on your opponent.  It looks like a beatdown down deck but it's really about the board.  Trinispheres are just as important here as the Titans.  The reason, I think, cards like Trike are better than Juggernaught is because the former is all about impact.  Aggro decks have such a hard time because their opponent's life total is irrelavent unless it is zero.  I digress.  I don't want to cover the deck's missing cards or matchups because this short article is about what Serum Powder and BFD have the potential of doing.  By not listing matchups and how it plays out, I can avoid discussion degenerating into whether the deck succeeds or fails.  Besides,  I'll leave the serious questions regarding the deck to Rico.  One of the strongest reasons to play Serum Powder in this deck is first turn Trinispheres.  We all know how back-breaking a turn 1 Trinisphere is.  The Powder pushes the odds a bit further in favor of drawing into that plan.

Let's go over the deck a little bit and hopefully how it relates to Serum Powder.  Here's a recent list.

Creatures (11)
3 Sundering Titan
4 Triskelion
4 Goblin Welder

Disruption (8)
4 Trinisphere
4 Chalice of the Void

Utility (12)
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Time Walk
1 Tinker
1 Memory Jar
4 Thirst for Knowledge
4 Serum Powder

Mana (29)
4 Mishra's Workshop
2 Ancient Tomb
4 Volcanic Island
4 Shivan Reef
1 Tolarian Academy
1 Strip Mine
4 Wasteland
8 SoLoMoxCrypt
1 Mana Vault

SB:
3 Open
4 Rack and Ruin
4 Damping Matrix
4 Tormod's Crypt

This is a pretty vanilla version here.  Titan, Trinisphere, Chalice and Wastes are probably the most central cards to the deck.  The rest of the deck is geared to abuse them.  With Brainstorm out and Powder in, Chalice for 1 isn't nearly as painful.  Pitching Powders to Thirst is nice.  Welding Powders into Titans is fun.  Drawing 7, Powdering for 7, mulling to 6, then Powdering again for 6 into turn one Shop ->Trinisphere is solid gold.

So how do you get Powder to work?  You simply expect more out of your deck when you also draw into a powder at the beginning of the game.  Mulling aggressively is a prerequisite.  If your hand is average (read: not broken) versus the unknown opponent and you hold a powder, you 'Powder away.  The theory is that you are removing non-broken cards (read: a non-broken hand) to draw into a broken hand.  When you 'Powder under this theory, you are drawing into a more broken and smaller deck.  The cost of this is occasionally having to maximize the use of a mediocre card after turn 0.

Everybody likes seeing hardcore stats, right?  Well, I've lost all of my math skills for the most part as it relates here.  I really gotta thank my teammates here, especially Matt for coming through with the percentages and making sure it was done right.  Since the purpose of this test is to find out what our best odds are at getting Workshop/Trinisphere out turn 1, I thought some stats would be in order.

The odds of getting at least one of a four-of in a hand of seven in a sixty card deck is 40%. (.40) Getting one Workshop and one Trinisphere (assuming 4-ofs on both) is 15%. That rises to 18% in a hand of eight.

Probability of getting:
-Exactly one Workshop:
(56 c 6) * (4 c 1) / (60 c 7) = .3362
-Exactly two Workshops:
(56 c 5) * (4 c 2) / (60 c 7) = .0593
-Exactly three Workshops:
(56 c 4) * (4 c 3) / (60 c 7) = .0038
-Exactly four Workshop:
(56 c 3) * (4 c 4) / (60 c 7) = .00007
where (X c Y) = [X!] / [(X-Y)!][Y!]  Adding all four possible ways of drawing a Workshop gives .4.

Now, lets say you are fortunate enough to draw a Serum Powder in your opening seven and are unfortunate in that your hand isn't sufficiently broken and you don't have the said 'combo.'  If your protocol is to Powder into brokenness or the combo then these are the numbers we need to know:

If you powdered away no combo pieces, you have an 18% chance of drawing the combo in your next seven (out of 53 cards).

If you powdered away one combo piece, you have a 14% chance of drawing the combo in your next seven (out of 53 cards).

If you powdered away two combo pieces, you have a 10% chance of drawing the combo in your next seven (out of 53 cards).

If you powdered away three combo pieces, you have a 5% chance of drawing the combo in your next seven (out of 53 cards).

This shows us that our odds have slightly increased.  Of course it doesn't take into account many other variables that are important as to how the match plays out, but that is for another thread. (or not).  

Ok, so is the information useful?  Lets go over some sample hands.  To get the following results, I sharpied 60 cards so that I could shuffle the deck many, many times very easily, despite only really looking at the top cards for testing results.  The listed goldfishing assumes that you are going first.  It is difficult to rationalize whether to keep a particular hand in some cases without the assumption of a particular matchup, obviously.  So bear with me when I keep some hands.

Hand 1-chalice, volc, tomb, welder, thirst, powder, sapph...Keep (Turn 1 thirst, welder in hand)

2-trike, shop, reef, thirst, reef, walk, trike...Mull
reef, shop, tomb, waste, titan, jet...Mull
powder, titan, pearl, thirst, chalice...Powder
sapph, emerald, waste, welder, trini.  Keep! (turn 1 trinisphere)

3-shop, powder, thirst, emerald, chalice, volc, volc....Powder
trike, recall, sapphire, shop, waste, reef, reef...Keep  (not too bad)

4-thirst, tinker, trike, chalice, crypt, tomb, waste...Mull (no U, ouch)
crypt, chalice, powder, academy, trini, tomb...Keep! (turn 1 trini, turn 2 chalice)

5-thirst, recall, trike, powder, strip, welder, titan...Powder
reef, reef, trini, volc, trini, tomb, trini....Mull
walk, chalice, shop, powder, reef, volc...Powder
shop, jet, crypt, tomb, trini, volc...Keep!  (turn 1 trini)

6-volc, tinkar, shop, trike, titan, titan, academy...Mull
chalice, reef, walk, waste, trike, jar...Mull
trike, chalice, academy, shop, waste...Keep (it's hard to mull this down to 4, iffy call)

7-welder, tomb, crypt, shop, waste, jet, thirst...Mull
trike, jet, chalice, powder, titan, volc...Powder
thirst, titan, volcanic, chalice, reef, welder...Keep (another iffy call?)

8-welder, shop, jet, reef, powder, ruby, reef...Powder
chalice, titan, pearl, chalice, thirst, chalice, academy...Keep! (turn 1 chalices, thirst)

9-shop, waste, reef, trike, waste, trini, trini...KEEP! (many bombs)

10-reef, tinker, trike, trini, strip, sol, titan...Keep (solid hand)

11-titan, powder, chalice, welder, titan, volc, chalice...Powder
walk, trike, recall, titan, sapphire, sol, shop...Keep! (broken cards galore)

12-titan, welder, chalice, academy, chalice, ruby, volc...Keep? (goldfishing chalice is hard)

13-sapphire, titan, academy, volc, vault, reef, shop...Keep. (turn 2 titan, REALLY dependant on match)

14-chalice, sol, vault, trini, powder, strip, lotus...KEEP!! (turn 1 chalice=2, trini, strip mine)

15-jar, volc, shop, sapph, reef, trike, volc...Mull
trike, waste, shop, welder, chalice, trike...Keep?  (your 2nd turn = chalice for 2, iffy)

I'll stop here after 15 of 30 fishes.  Because, I fear that this type of data is very apprentice-log-esque.  If you managed to read this far, maybe you will consider 'BFD.'   At the very least, I hope some of you will take a second look at the magical powder.  The card has broken written on it, somebody will  no doubt find a way to break it.  The bottom line is that you get to see 7 new cards for no mana, plus it is a non-symmetrical effect.  Myself, I am half expecting to see this card somewhere at one of the 'cons.  We'll see.

[Machinus]

Isn't a big liability to draw a hand with powder and either shop or trinisphere, but not both? If you powder, you remove one of the "combo" pieces, and then are looking at 3 out of 53 instead of 4 out of 60 for one of them. This seems like too large of a setback in terms of resources.

[wuaffiliate]

not really.

the deck had so much inherent brokeness, if its not a turn 1-2 titan, its a turn 1-2 trike, or turn 1 3sphere, turn2 phat.

its not really a combo, if you lose titan or sphere you have chalice and trisk.

have you ever gone to paris 3 times in one game and came back with 6 broken ass cards?

[Methuselahn]

Isn't a big liability to draw a hand with powder and either shop or trinisphere, but not both? If you powder, you remove one of the "combo" pieces, and then are looking at 3 out of 53 instead of 4 out of 60 for one of them. This seems like too large of a setback in terms of resources.

Well, the thing is, you are not really playing the deck to get the combo like the 'test' above.  Akin to what wu says, the deck bitch slaps you many different ways.  Just look at that said opening hand with the Powder.  If you don't cream your pants when you see 6 brokenness + Powder, then just Powder away for 7 new cards.  The whole point of the theory is that you rfg that hand and draw into a deck with more brokenness or shooting for the trini combo with NO card loss.

[dicemanx]

I want to discuss one thing you mentioned at the start:

Often, arguments proclaim that it is just like taking a mulligan by drawing one in your opening hand because you really only have 6 cards + 1 Powder. This argument tends to fall flat (at least in the decklist below) because of the broken nature of T1 and the multiple alternate uses beyond the card's primary function.

I have an alternate viewpoint, and I wonder what your opinion on it will be.

Consider scenario 1: no Serum Powders MD. You draw your initial 7, then have the option to mulligan to 6 and try again.

Scenario 2: You do run Serum Powder MD, and draw one in the opening 7. This means that you are effectively seeing only 6 cards initially, but have the option to mulligan to another 7 card hand.

Result: both scenario 1 and 2 allow you to see 6+7 card hands.

Now, there are some implicit assumptions in this comparison:

1. A Serum Powder in hand will be useless. This is of course not always true, but its a good approximation to say that the card has negligible effects past turn 0.

2. In scenario 2, your chances of seeing a second Powder after mulliganing a hand which contained a Powder are statistically insignificant.

3. The deck has a decent level of consistency so that it will very rarely mulligan more than once per game. If it would need to mulligan more than once on average, it would clearly favor scenario 2, but such a deck would probably be too inconsistent to be top tier.


If we accept the assumptions, then scenarios one and two are relatively of equal value. So, we would have to examine separate issues to determine if the use of Powder is warranted. For instance:

Arguments against Powder MD:

1. A top decked Powder in the course of a game is always useless (to a good approximation), which means that you could be effectively "mulliganing" without knowing it if you end up drawing Powders.

2. Although mulliganing with Powder allows you to see the same number of cards (6+7), you will see the "six" card hand first, not the seven card hand. This limits the potential of the strength of the first hand.


Arguments for Powder MD:

1. Powders have limited acceleration potential and Weldability, so their downside might be partially offset by this small gain. Further offsetting of the downside might also occur if you mulligan multiple times with the Powder's aid.
 
2. In some cases, if the deck is capable of producing very broken plays, it might be better to see 6 card hands first. If they don't lead to a high probability of a quick win, then you will get to trade them in for seven card hands.


Is there anything that I'm missing?

[rvs]

2. Although mulliganing with Powder allows you to see the same number of cards (6+7), you will see the "six" card hand first, not the seven card hand. This limits the potential of the strength of the first hand.

This is reason enough to NOT run powder, ever.

[Matt]

2. Although mulliganing with Powder allows you to see the same number of cards (6+7), you will see the "six" card hand first, not the seven card hand. This limits the potential of the strength of the first hand.

This is reason enough to NOT run powder, ever.

Hogwash. Six card hands in type one very, very often have seven cards' worth of power in them, and are thus VERY keepable.

[austinnadz]

yes, but the only search power that this deck has is a tinker. therefore this deck is VERY limited to it's search power.

IMO:
putting in serum powder for brainstorm is in theory an excellent idea. a turn one trinisphere against combo or most other opponents says, screw you guys I'm taking the lead. but because you are taking out brainstorm which draws you a card (potentially a severely broken card), you lose even more search power and you are left with thirsts and a tinker. but the idea here is if you go for broke in your first hand, you won't need to worry about the draw will you? and let's face it, the opening hand of any type one game pretty much dictates the winner, who has more broken?

so to conclude, I am very on the fence over this issue. I've played BFD in and out with and without the powder and there are times where I'm just like, GFG serum powder where is my brainstorm??? then there are other times where I'm like, wow I wish I could have kept a different hand. it's gotta be preference here, I don't think there is an optimum build between the two, it's play-style really.

[wuaffiliate]

it takes balls to play with powder, mulling is an art.

[rvs]

it takes balls to play with powder, mulling is an art.

BS.

Mulling at the right moment is what makes you a better player.

This deck only has 5 draw spells, and 1 tutor. That makes it a very bad idea to run dead cards like powder.

[wuaffiliate]

aggresive mulling with powder can make for extremely broken plays, plays you cant make while normally mulling. shop decks mull alot, this improves their consistancy through being able to mulligan multiple times in one game.

mulling without powder is simple yes, but when givin the chance to basically mulligan into a hand you WANT is what makes it work in BFD.

EDIT:

running 5 draw + 1 tutor is a good reason to run powder. it improves the odds of getting those balls out hands BFD wants. its MUCH better than brainstorm because it produces brokeness, brainstorm just doesnt.

The deck just wants to win asap, powder produces the hands that make that possible.

[Charlie]

Isn't a big liability to draw a hand with powder and either shop or trinisphere, but not both? If you powder, you remove one of the "combo" pieces, and then are looking at 3 out of 53 instead of 4 out of 60 for one of them. This seems like too large of a setback in terms of resources.

It's a fallacy about probability. You may draw a powder with a combo piece, or may not. In the former case you then look at 4 out of 53, and in the latter 3 out of 53. The overall probability doesn't change indeed, barring some exceptional cases like Yawgmoth's Will where you tutor for it than draw it more often than not, since having 0 Will accessable is a whole world different.

[Vegeta2711]

I'm tempted to just requote Matt here, but honestly you can afford to have one near-dead card in your hand some of the time in this format.

It does a great job at replacing Brainstorm, which is used in many decks for hand fixing, but in here powder is simply a 0 mana way to fix your hand.

[Toad]

It does a great job at replacing Brainstorm, which is used in many decks for hand fixing, but in here powder is simply a 0 mana way to fix your hand.

That is incorrect.
Serum Powder only fixes your OPENING hand, and you are not even sure the 7 cards you'll draw with the Powder ability will be good. Brainstorm is never a dead draw, helps you to smooth your draws and your mana base, helps when facing Duress and digs 3 cards deeper in your deck past turn 1. I'm not even mentionning the synergy with fetchlands, since you are not running them.

[austinnadz]

my thoughts on this, you can mull all you want, ASSUMING YOU GET THE POWDER IN YOUR HAND. otherwise, it's a savagely dead topdeck card that I'd rather have brainstorm in place of.

now comes an issue when you rftg cards, what in this deck can you justafiably remove from the game? certainly not a welder, thirsts are pretty good I hear, while topdecking land when you don't need it sucks, lands can get you off to a pretty good start with workshops, ancient tombs, volcanic islands. triskelions are basically your only form of removal here, and sundering titans are normally the ones to bring home the win. what's that really leave to remove? uh... moxen are pretty good, you don't usually want to remove those from the game, and we always need a workshop to get us on our feet. can you really sacrafice any of this? seriously I think the weakest card in the deck is probably now serum powder or shivan reef, and shivan reef isn't that bad.

I don't know about serum powder.

[PucktheCat]

now comes an issue when you rftg cards, what in this deck can you justafiably remove from the game?

This deck has no tutoring to speak of.  Why would it care if cards are removed from the game?  If Serum Powder put them on the bottom of your library it they would be just as inaccessible.

I agree that Serum Powder's weakness when drawn in the game is a pretty good argument against it, though.

Leo

[wuaffiliate]

it pitches to TFK, its castable as a mana source under 3sphere. what do you do with moxen/crypt/lotus when drawn under 3sphere?

[austinnadz]

it pitches to TFK, its castable as a mana source under 3sphere. what do you do with moxen/crypt/lotus when drawn under 3sphere

moxen/crypt/lotus are all pitchable to TFK if you've got a trinisphere on the board. not only that, but you have to pay three to cast powder anyways, so there isn't a drawback to paying the three for any colored mox, or a two producing mana source. keeping a serum powder just to pitch for TFK is no reason to keep it at all. whereas, with a powder you are paying three for a single colorless mana. you might as well keep a mox and have a red or a blue.

[Vegeta2711]

@ Toad - I agree completely, I simply said in -this- specfic deck, Powder has been far more effective than Brainstorm has. Since the deck can't really run good draw past Ancestral and TFK, your opening hand are the only cards that are going to matter a large chunk of the time.

@ Austin - What are you even trying to say in your last post? Wu made the comparision that you'd do with Powder, what you'd do with moxen/crypt/lotus. Pitch them to TFK or cast them, I don't even what the point of you assuming we had both in hand @ whatever time was.

now comes an issue when you rftg cards, what in this deck can you justafiably remove from the game?

Anything. You can justfiably RFG anything in your deck w/o consequence as long as you know your hand isn't that broken.

[TheAdvantage]

Anything. You can justfiably RFG anything in your deck w/o consequence as long as you know your hand isn't that broken.

And its pretty obvious that if your hand is broken then you wont be powdering it away.

Just thought I'd add a bit of content; all I really wanted to say is that fat kid av is fucked up.

[austinnadz]

@vegeta

wu said:

[serum powder] pitches to TFK, its castable as a mana source under 3sphere. what do you do with moxen/crypt/lotus when drawn under 3sphere?

therefore I was trying to say, you can pitch moxen to tfk as well, there is no need to keep serum powder in the deck because "it pitches to TFK." and under trinisphere everything costs three to play, yes? so, where serum powder costs three to play and moxen cost zero, under trinisphere everything still costs three to play anyways. now, a mox can produce one colored mana and a powder can produce one colorless mana. I'd much rather have the colored mana over the colorless mana on the board. you either pitch the moxen or the powder or you cast them, correct?

and I was never under the assumption that we had both in hand at any time. I think you were the one to assume that I was talking about having them both in hand. and refresh my memory, what in this deck isn't broken aside from serum powder? and removing from game consequence is: you can't get anything you remove from the game back in this deck.

and yes, that fat kid av blows the mind.

[Matt]

now comes an issue when you rftg cards, what in this deck can you justafiably remove from the game? certainly not a welder, thirsts are pretty good I hear, while topdecking land when you don't need it sucks, lands can get you off to a pretty good start with workshops, ancient tombs, volcanic islands. triskelions are basically your only form of removal here, and sundering titans are normally the ones to bring home the win. what's that really leave to remove? uh... moxen are pretty good, you don't usually want to remove those from the game, and we always need a workshop to get us on our feet. can you really sacrafice any of this? seriously I think the weakest card in the deck is probably now serum powder or shivan reef, and shivan reef isn't that bad.

This argument is poor for the same reason that Millstone is a bad card. PuckTheCat already went over this but it bears repeating.

[Bobduh]

If you remove one copy of the card from the game, along with 6 other random cards, the change in chance of getting the card is marginal- you're thinning out the deck on turn 0, which makes the repeat draw more likely. Plus...

...strange... had... other ideas... but must... watch... dancing... fat kid...

[austinnadz]

yes, but it thins out the deck of stuff that you probably need at one point or another. nonetheless, I think this whole argument is on the condition that you draw serum powder in a hand you choose to mulligan with, thus making it an even more poor card.

you can play with it, I probably won't.

[dicemanx]

I'm disappointed, as no one has bothered to address the points I made at the start of this thread - we are deciding on the merits of Powder in improving our starting hands at turn 0, but we can easily forget that we already have something that can do that already - the regular mulligan.

The rfg arguments have no bearing on anything, and arguing that Powder isn't completely useless (as it pitches to TFK and is mana acceleration) is weak because Powders replace significant *business* spells.

[Methuselahn]

yes, but it thins out the deck of stuff that you probably need at one point or another. nonetheless, I think this whole argument is on the condition that you draw serum powder in a hand you choose to mulligan with, thus making it an even more poor card.

you can play with it, I probably won't.

First, do you ever use all 60 cards in your deck?  No, not usually.  Also notice the number of unique restricted cards.  There are not many.  You cannot really include Moxen as unique/critical cards because they all do the same thing, tap for mana.  The deck is loaded for bear when it comes to 4-of redundancy.  The argument that you cannot afford to remove anything is ridiculous.  Matt had expained this perfectly with the Millstone example.

I'd much rather have the colored mana over the colorless mana on the board. you either pitch the moxen or the powder or you cast them, correct?

Well, it's not like you are playing Powders over Moxen.  The Moxen ARE in the deck.  Powders replace Brainstorm, which also happen to produce colorless colored mana.  This bonus can actually act as a psuedo time walk effect early under a turn 1 trinisphere.  This is because you cannot use Shop to cast a welder or such fast.  In Rico's tourny report/discussion he goes over an example expaining this.

Be careful when you say 'mulligan' because you are not.  You change the contents of your deck when you use powder.

I really think that Serum Powder has great synergy with the vintage format.  You rely on your opening hand SOO much and Powder has the function of really digging through your deck.  Sure, drawing a Powder after turn 0 can be sub-optimal.  When you take into consideration the swingyness and tempo of the format, any random mana source can be just as dead when in topdeck mode.

Edit: Just saw dicemanx's post.

The rfg arguments have no bearing on anything, and arguing that Powder isn't completely useless (as it pitches to TFK and is mana acceleration) is weak because Powders replace significant *business* spells.

Why do the RFG arguments have no bearing?  Do the numbers have no relevance?  Define Business spell.

[dicemanx]

I really think that Serum Powder has great synergy with the vintage format. You rely on your opening hand SOO much and Powder has the function of really digging through your deck.

But you have to justify the use of Powder versus relying on the regular mulligan. Again, Powder assisted mulligans are like seeing 6+7 cards, while a regular mulligan is like seeing 7+6 cards (the assumption being that you will not mulligan more than once with any significant frequency).

[Methuselahn]

Powdering isn't mulling.

Lets say you Powder away a hand that doesn't have the most awesome card (assuming for this example that it is restricted) in your deck.  You now have 53 cards for that card to be in and you get 7 chances at finding it.

Lets say you Mulligan a hand to 6.  You now have 6 chances out of a 60 card deck to get that card.

I don't think you can assume that you'd only be powdering/mulling only once per game, with this deck.

[austinnadz]

yes, but to mull with powder you have to have it in your hand. thus, if you don't have powder in your hand, you've gotta take one less to mull for it, say you have it in your hand, that's like having 5 cards. it's only good if you are guaranteed to have it in your first opening hand and it's a bad opening hand. otherwise it's a dead card.

[wuaffiliate]

austinnadz, you still missed the point. my point was that under 3sphere powder is no worse than drawing a solomoxcrypt, the coloured mana aspect is moot because only 3 of 8 are on colour.

when drawn, if the game is going as it should from getting a broken hand, drawing powder should not matter one bit.

there is no need to keep serum powder in the deck because "it pitches to TFK."

that completely missed the point also because i never said a main reason it was in the deck was to pitch it to TFK. i was pointing out worst comes to worst you CAN pitch it and it wont matter.

@ Austin - What are you even trying to say in your last post? Wu made the comparision that you'd do with Powder, what you'd do with moxen/crypt/lotus. Pitch them to TFK or cast them, I don't even what the point of you assuming we had both in hand @ whatever time was. "

hell josh even pointed out my point and you still didnt understand.